CAR_Public/160921.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, September 21, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 189




                            Headlines


3M CO: Residents Near Ex-Navy Bases Sue Over Firefighting Foam
ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: Aguirre Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class
ADT CORP: Dismissal of IBEW Local 595 Pension Suit Affirmed
ALBERTSON'S LLC: Certification of 4 Classes Sought in "Diaz" Suit
ALERE INC: Mass. Court Ordered Schedule for Filing Amended Suit

ALERE INC: Defending INRatio Class Actions in S.D. Cal.
ALTA-DENA CERTIFIED: Perez Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
AMERICAN SCIENCE: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action
ANCHOR DRILLING: "Stewart" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
APPLIANCE RECYCLING: "Feola" Class Action Pending

APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Continues to Monitor Cases v. Whirlpool
ASHLEY FURNITURE: Class Certification Sought in "Dugan" Suit
ASSET RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kalmenson" Suit Says
AT&T SERVICES: Training Manager Class Certified in "Walton" Suit
BNT NAILS: "Monzon" Class Suit Moved to S.D. Florida

BOSTON COLLEGE: "Capriola" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
BRANDREP INC: Court Strikes Bid to Certify Class in "Alan" Suit
BROOKHAVEN RETREAT: FLSA Class Cert. Sought in "Campbell" Suit
CEPHALON INC: 3rd Cir. Sends Provigil Case Back to Lower Court
CHAPA GATE: Faces "Porter" Suit Seeking "Unpaid" Wages Under FLSA

CHUGACH GOVERNMENT: "Galloway" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
CNX GAS: "Kinney" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
CORNERSTONE EQUITY: Arbitration Ruling in "Williams" Affirmed
CRIUS ENERGY: Staunches Seeks Certification of FLSA Class in Fla.
DALLAS CENTRAL: TMT Mild Sues Over Excessive Appraisal

DALLAS CENTRAL: "Verhalen" Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Prim Turnpike Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Regency Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces RRE Fairways Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces RS Hunting Suit Over Appraisal Policies

DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Sealy SW Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces TC Knox Class Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces HTA-FP Tower Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Vpust Hotel Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DBI O&M: Sued by Sibley Over Racial Discrimination & Retaliation

DELTA AIR: Has Until Nov. 15 for Discovery of Named Plaintiffs
E.S. MEDICAL: Mussat Seeks Certification of Class in TCPA Suit
EVENTURES INT'L: "Pino" Suit Seeks to Recover Tips and Gratuities
FANTECH SOFTWARE: Class Certification Sought in "Amini" Suit
FCI LENDER: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lazar" Action Claims

FIRST CHINESE: Ramirez Guzman Seeks to Recover Wages Under NYLL
FONTANA PAPER: "Ordaz" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
GODADDY.COM LLC: Class Certification Sought in "Bennett" Suit
GOYA FOODS: Must Defend Against Breach of Warranty Claims
HARRIS COUNTY: MCRT Houston Sues Over Excessive Appraisal

HARRIS COUNTY: Multifamily 2 Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
HARRIS COUNTY: Westdale North Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
HARRIS COUNTY: Sidra Riverway Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
HARRIS COUNTY: TXHP Humble Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
HARRIS COUNTY: Westdale Bear Sues Over Excessive Appraisal

HARRIS COUNTY: Sidra Woodway Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Sun Life Suit Over Appraisal Policies
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Misclassifies Employees, "Vega" Suit Says
HOME DEPOT: Court Rules on Class Certification in "Casey" Suit
HUMANADENTAL INSURANCE: Class Certification Hearing Set for Oct 5

IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Faces Securities Suits in New Jersey
JOY GLOBAL: Faces "Rote" Suit Arising From Merger With Komatsu
KELLY SERVICES: Holmes Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
KEY ENERGY: Motion for Class Certification Due Sept. 30
KEY ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff's Deadline to Appeal Expired

KEY ENERGY: Suit in Corpus Christi, Tex. Set for Dec. 12 Trial
KEY ENERGY: Suit in Houston, Tex. Set for Dec. 12 Trial
KIMCO REALTY: Faces "Badger" Suit in W.D. Penn. Over ADA Breach
LEE N' EDDIES: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Urban Suit
LIBERTY INSURANCE: Class Certification Sought in "Bond" Suit

LIVE NATION: Himber Seeks Certification of Ticket Buyers Class
MC LLC: Accused by "Marks" Suit of Deceiving Jiffy Lube Customers
METHOD PRODUCTS: Faces "Labrado" Class Suit in California
MJ CHRISTENSEN: Fisher's Renewed Bid to Compel Response Denied
ML AUTOMOTIVE: Otero Seeks Certification of Salespersons Class

NIANTIC INC: Villas Sues Over Nuisance Caused by Pokemon Go Craze
NORTHLAND GROUP: Aguirre Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class
ORLEANS PARISH, LA: Yarls Renews Bid to Certify Residents Class
OU JIANG CITY: Wu Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
PATH INC: Must Defend Against Yelp Data-Mining Privacy Suit

PEOPLE AGAINST DIRTY: Accused by Vincent of Deceiving Consumers
PERFORMANCE SPORTS: Says Business Review Report Not Accurate
PETER PIPER: Illegally Collects Debt, "Jacobson" Action Claims
PRECISION CASTPARTS: NECA-IBEW Sues Over Acquisition by Berkshire
PSA REALTY: Faces "Ghale" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws

R&A OYSTERS: Class of H-2B Workers Certified in "Cordova" Suit
REITER BUNSIC: "Casimir" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Under FLSA
RIVMAR CORPORATION: Sued by Vazquez Over FLSA and IMWL Violations
ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Magistrate Judge Says Case Should be Trimmed
RVS EXPRESS: Faces "Maniago" Class Suit in California

SANDBOX LOGISTICS: Rayfield Sues on Behalf of Equipment Operators
SCHWABE NORTH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Big Thyme Suit Claims
SELECT MEDIA: Faces "Brown" Class Suit in California Super. Court
SILVER CREEK: Ashcraft Class Suit Removed to E.D. Oklahoma
SMG HOLDINGS: Urbano, et al. Seek Class & Subclass Certification

SUMMIT NURSING: Faces "Abrigo" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
SWISHER HYGIENE: Motion to Dismiss Berger Class Suit Underway
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Oct. 6 Hearing on Motions to Transfer Cases
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Michigan Retirement Sys. Seeks Transfer of Case
TEXAS COASTAL: "Sury" Suit Seeks Lost Wages Under Labor Code

TODISCO SERVICES: Sued in Mass. Super. Ct. Over Billing Practices
TOMMIE COPPER: "Herst" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
UNITED AIRLINES: "Martin" Class Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
VISION FINANCIAL: Court Enters Default Judgment in "Dolemba" Suit
WARRIOR AIR: Faces "Cruz" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA


                            *********


3M CO: Residents Near Ex-Navy Bases Sue Over Firefighting Foam
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that residents near two former
suburban Navy bases are suing producers of firefighting foam once
used there, claiming they contaminated the drinking water.

New York law firm Weitz & Luxenberg filed the federal lawsuit on
Sept. 15 in Philadelphia on behalf of seven people who lived near
the Willow Grove Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base and the
Naval Air Warfare Center.  The lawsuit seeks chemical cleanup and
unspecified damages.

Named as defendants are The 3M Co., of St. Paul, Minnesota; UK-
based Angus Fire; The Ansul Co., of Marinette, Wisconsin; North
Carolina-based Buckeye Fire Protection Co.; Wisconsin's Chemguard;
and National Foam, of West Chester.

The residents allege the companies should have known
perfluorooctane sulfonate and other chemicals would pose health
and environmental risks.  They're seeking class action status.

"With this lawsuit, we are fighting to ensure that the companies
who manufactured and marketed products containing these chemicals
-- and put their profits ahead of public health in the process --
are brought to justice for their wrongdoing," Robin Greenwald, who
heads an environmental unit at the law firm, said in a statement.

The chemical compounds have been found in some firefighting foams
that were widely used for decades on military bases throughout the
country.  They also are found in some household items such as food
packaging.

The issue has gotten the attention of environmental activist
Erin Brockovich, who spoke with residents at a community meeting
in Willow Grove in June.  Ms. Brockovich, who was portrayed by
Julia Roberts in a 2000 movie bearing her name, works as a
consultant to Weitz & Luxenberg.

No scientific evidence has consistently linked the chemicals to
cancer in humans, although some studies have shown that people
exposed to high levels of the compounds had higher incidents of
kidney, prostate and testicular cancers, the Pennsylvania
Department of Health says.

The Navy and National Guard previously agreed to pay about $19
million to provide residents replacement water and install
filtration systems after more than a dozen public wells and 140
private wells in the Philadelphia area were taken offline.

Attorney William A. Brewer III, representing 3M, said the claims
in the lawsuit have no merit.  He said the U.S. military used the
product "because it saves lives, which likely explains why this
product remains in use about a decade after 3M exited the sales of
it."

The company sold the product with instructions on how to safely
use and dispose of it, he said.

Tyco Fire Protection Products was aware of the legal action
involving its brands Ansul and Chemguard but declined to comment
on the ongoing litigation, a spokeswoman said.

Other companies named in the lawsuit did not immediately respond
on Sept. 16 to requests for comment.


ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: Aguirre Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Aguirre asks the Court to certify that the claims set forth
in her lawsuit captioned CARMEN AGUIRRE, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS CORP.; and
BLATT, HASENMILLER, LEIBSKER & MOORE LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-11111
(N.D. Ill.), may proceed on behalf of this class:

     (1) All persons in Illinois (2) to whom Defendant sent a
     form letter to collect a debt (3) substantially similar to
     Exhibit C of Plaintiff's Complaint (4) which threatened the
     possibility of interest, late charges, or other charges
     being added to an alleged debt (4) within 1 year of the
     complaint.

The Case is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Ms. Aguirre also asks the Court to name her as class
representative, appoint her lawyers as counsel for the class and
allow her to file a memorandum in support of the Motion after
taking class discovery.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6qCQPhYD

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Wood, Esq.
          Celetha Chatman, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 502
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 757-1880
          Facsimile: (312) 476-1362
          E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com
                  cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com


ADT CORP: Dismissal of IBEW Local 595 Pension Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of the complaint filed by a class of
ADT investors in the case captioned IBEW LOCAL 595 PENSION AND
MONEY PURCHASE PENSION PLANS, MACOMB COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, KBC ASSET MANAGEMENT NV, Plaintiffs-Appellants, PHILIP
HENNINGSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE ADT CORPORATION, NAREN
GURSAHANEY, KEITH A. MEISTER, CORVEX MANAGEMENT LP, Defendants-
Appellees, SARATOGA ADVANTAGE TRUST LARGE CAPITALIZATION VALUE
PORTFOLIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ADT CORPORATION, NAREN GURSAHANEY, KEITH
A. MEISTER, et al., Defendants, No. 15-13595 (11th Cir.).

The case presents the question whether The ADT Corporation and its
Chief Executive Officer, Naren Gursahaney (collectively, the "ADT
Defendants"), and Corvex Management LP and its founder and
managing director, Keith A. Meister (collectively, the "Corvex
Defendants"), violated securities laws when ADT failed to disclose
its subjective motivation for adopting a program to repurchase its
stock.  The appellants, a class of ADT investors, also alleged
that the ADT Defendants made material  misrepresentations by
failing to disclose the effect of increased competition on ADT's
financial performance and that the ADT and Corvex Defendants
engaged in deceptive conduct in executing the stock repurchase
plan.

The ADT and Corvex Defendants moved to dismiss.  The district
court granted the motions and dismissed the complaint in its
entirety.  The district court held that the ADT investors'
misrepresentation claims against the ADT Defendants failed because
precedent barred the claims, the complaint lacked sufficient
allegations that the misrepresentations or omissions were false or
misleading, and the complaint insufficiently supported an
inference of scienter as to all the defendants.  The district
court also concluded that the ADT investors failed to state a
claim for scheme liability because they failed to allege that the
defendants engaged in deceptive conduct beyond the alleged
misrepresentations and omissions.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court, and
held that the shareholders failed to state a claim under the
securities laws.

A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's September 7, 2016
ruling is available at https://is.gd/kFEujU from Leagle.com.

Defendant-Appellee is represented by Nancy A. Copperthwaite --
nancy.copperthwaite@akerman.com -- Louise McAlpin --
louise.mcalpin@hklaw.com -- Tracy A. Nichols --
tracy.nichols@hklaw.com -- Brian P. Miller -- bpm@scmlaw.com --
Daniel J. Kramer -- dkramer@paulweiss.com -- Abigail M. Lyle --
alyle@hunton.com -- Samuel Danon -- sdanon@hunton.com -- Jamie
Zysk Isani -- jisani@hunton.com -- Robert N. Kravitz --
rkravitz@paulweiss.com -- Nancy Chung -- nchung@sidley.comm --
Alexandra Walsh -- awalsh@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- Samantha J.
Kavanaugh -- samantha.kavanaugh@akerman.com -- Daniel A. Mason --
dmason@paulweiss.com -- Brittany Leanne Brown --
brittany.brown@hklaw.com -- Daniel A. Richards --
drichards@westonhurd.com -- J. Wesley Earnhardt --
wearnhardt@cravath.com -- Rory A. Leraris -- rleraris@cravath.com
-- Sandra C. Goldstein -- sgoldstein@cravath.com -- Jessica A.
Fitts -- jfitts@akingump.com -- Michael A. Asaro --
masaro@akingump.com -- Lorayne Perez -- lorayne.perez@akerman.com
-- and Patrick Mott -- pmott@akingump.com

Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by Jack Reise --
jreise@rgrdlaw.com -- Douglas S. Wilens -- dwilens@rgrdlaw.com --
Stephen Astley -- sastley@rgrdlaw.com -- Elizabeth A. Shonson --
eshonson@rgrdlaw.com -- James M. Hughes -- jhughes@motleyrice.com
-- Andrew T. Rees


ALBERTSON'S LLC: Certification of 4 Classes Sought in "Diaz" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled ANTONIO DIAZ, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. ALBERTSON'S LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
Case No. 8:16-cv-00257-DSF-JEM (C.D. Cal.), asks the Court to
certify these classes:

     1. On Duty Meal Period Class: All Pharmacists employed by
        Defendant in California from March 22, 2013 to the
        present who signed an on duty meal period agreement and
        to whom Defendant did not provide a duty free meal break
        (or a one hour payment for any violations);

     2. Rest Period Class: All Pharmacists employed by Defendant
        in California from March 22, 2013 to the present who
        signed an on duty meal period agreement and to whom
        Defendant did not authorize and permit an off duty rest
        break (or a one hour payment for any violations);

     3. Waiting Time Class: All formerly employed Pharmacists of
        Defendant in California from March 22, 2013 to the
        present who were subjected to Defendant's on duty meal
        period agreement and to whom Defendant failed to timely
        pay all wages due upon separation from employment
        pursuant to Labor Code Section 203; and

     4. 17200 Class: All Pharmacists employed by Defendant in
        California from March 22, 2013 to the present to whom
        Defendant has engaged in unlawful, unfair and/or
        fraudulent business acts or practices in the form of
        Labor Code and Wage Order violations regarding meal and
        rest violations and payment of final wages.

Mr. Diaz also asks the Court to appoint his counsel to serve as
counsel to the classes, and to authorize Notice to the Classes of
the pending action and its members' right to opt-out under Rule
23(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3nl6URLU

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
          Gregg Lander, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
          5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460
          Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664
          Telephone: (323) 549-9100
          Facsimile: (323) 549-0101
          E-mail: Barnes@kbarnes.com
                  lander@kbarnes.com


ALERE INC: Mass. Court Ordered Schedule for Filing Amended Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alere Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that a court in Massachusetts has
ordered a schedule for the filing of a consolidated amended
complaint and for the motion to dismiss briefing in the "Godinez"
securities class action.

The Company said, "On April 21, 2016, a class action lawsuit
captioned Godinez v. Alere Inc., was filed against us in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On
May 4, 2016, a second class action lawsuit captioned Breton v.
Alere Inc., was filed against us in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. Both of these class
actions purport to assert claims against us and certain current
and former officers for alleged violations of Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the
Exchange Act."

"Each plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock during the
period May 9, 2013 through April 20, 2016. Each complaint seeks
damages allegedly caused by alleged materially misleading
statements and/or material omissions by us and the officers
regarding our business, prospects and operations, each plaintiff
claims, which allegedly operated to inflate artificially the price
paid for our common stock during the class period. Each complaint
seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

"On July 11, 2016, the court entered an order consolidating the
two actions and appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and
on July 19, 2016, the court ordered a schedule for the filing of a
consolidated amended complaint and for the motion to dismiss
briefing."


ALERE INC: Defending INRatio Class Actions in S.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
Alere Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is defending INRatio
class actions by Dina Andren and Sidney Bludman, and by J.E and
J.D.

The Company said, "On May 26, 2016, a class action lawsuit
captioned Dina Andren and Sidney Bludman v. Alere Inc., et al.,
was filed against us in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California. In addition, on July 22, 2016, a
class action lawsuit captioned J.E, J.D., and all others similarly
situated v. Alere Inc., Alere San Diego, Inc. and Alere Home
Monitoring, Inc., was filed against us in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. These class
actions purport to assert claims against us under several legal
theories, including fraud, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment
and violation of applicable unfair competition/business practice
statutes in connection with the manufacturing, marketing and sale
of our INRatio products."

"The plaintiffs in the Dina Andren and Sidney Bludman class action
seek to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased,
rented or otherwise paid for the INRatio system during the period
January 1, 2009 to May 26, 2016 in the United States, or
alternatively, California, Maryland and/or New York. The
plaintiffs in the J.E, J.D., and all others similarly situated
class action seek to represent a proposed class of all persons who
purchased, rented or otherwise paid for the INRatio system during
the period April 1, 2008 to present.

"Both class action complaints seek restitution and damages
allegedly resulting from inaccurate PT/INR readings and from the
purchase of devices that claimants say they would not have
purchased had they known of the alleged propensity of these
devices to yield inaccurate PT/INR results. Among other things,
plaintiffs in these class action lawsuits seek a refund of money
spent on INRatio products. Each complaint also seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and
costs. The Andren action also appears to seek damages for personal
injury."


ALTA-DENA CERTIFIED: Perez Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JUAN PEREZ, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALTA-DENA CERTIFIED DAIRY,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:13-cv-07741-R-FFM (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify these class and
subclasses:

Plaintiff Class:

     "all persons who were employed by Defendant as a "Driver" in
     California for as long as the statutory period will allow
     (the "putative class")";

Subclass 1 ("Meal Period Subclass"):

     "all Plaintiff Class Members who worked a shift of five
     hours or more for Defendant from [February 7, 2008] [May 15,
     2009]1 to May 31, 2011";

Subclass 2 ("Meal Period Subclass 2008-2011 A") (*alternative to
Subclass 1):

     "all Plaintiff Class Members who worked a shift of five
     hours or more for Defendant from [February 7, 2008] [May 15,
     2009] through December 31, 2010";

Subclass 3 ("Meal Period Subclass 2008-2011 B") (*alternative to
Subclass 1):

     "all Plaintiff Class Members who worked a shift of ten or
     more for Defendant from [February 7, 2008] [May 15, 2009]
     through December 31, 2010";

Subclass 4 ("Rest Period Subclass"):

     "all Plaintiff Class Members who worked a shift of eight
     hours or more for Defendant from [February 7, 2008] [May 15,
     2009] through December 31, 2010";

Subclass 5 ("30 Minute Deduction Subclass - Regular Rate or
Minimum Wage"):

     "all Plaintiff Class Members who worked a shift of
     five hours or more for Defendant from [February 7, 2008]
     [May 15, 2009] through the date of the Certification Order";

Subclass 6 ("30 Minute Deduction Subclass - Overtime"):

     "all Plaintiff Class Members who worked hours eligible for
     overtime compensation (inclusive of the 30 minute credit for
     each day such time was automatically deducted) for Defendant
     from [February 7, 2008] [May 15, 2009] through May 31,
     2011";

Subclass 7 ("30 Minute Deduction Subclass - Regular Rate or
Minimum Wage Based on Defendant's Records") (*alternative to
Subclass 4):

     "all Plaintiff Class Members who worked a shift of five
     hours or more for Defendant from [February 7, 2008] [May 15,
     2009] through the date of the Certification Order without
     recording 30 minutes of off-duty time, but who had 30
     minutes of hourly wages automatically deducted by
     Defendant's auto-deduct policy as shown by Defendant's
     corporate business and payroll records";

Subclass 8 ("30 Minute Deduction Subclass - Overtime")
(*alternative to Subclass 5):

     "all Plaintiff Class Members who worked a shift of five
     hours or more for Defendant from [February 7, 2008] [May 15,
     2009] through May 31, 2011 without recording 30 minutes of
     off-duty time, but who had 30 minutes of hourly wages
     automatically deducted by Defendant's auto-deduct policy -
     and who worked hours eligible for overtime compensation,
     but whose overtime pay was unpaid and/or reduced as a result
     of Defendant's auto-deduct policy - as shown by Defendant's
     corporate business and payroll records";

Subclass 9 ("Paystub Subclass"):

     "all Plaintiff Class Members who worked for Defendant from
     [February 7, 2011] [May 15, 2012] to the date established by
     the Certification Order;" and

Subclass 10 ("The Termination Pay Subclass"):

     "all Plaintiff Class Members whose employment was separated
     from [February 7, 2009] [May 15, 2010] to the date
     established by the Certification Order"; and

Subclass 11 ("UCL Subclass"):

     "all Plaintiff Class members who worked for Defendant from
     [February 7, 2008] [May 15, 2009] through the date of the
     Certification Order and are owed restitution for "hours
     worked" without pay [because of Defendant's route
     restriction policy] or [as shown by Defendant's corporate
     business and payroll records].";

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BY7JScWy

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy B. McCaffrey, Jr., Esq.
          Natasha Chesler, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          TIMOTHY B. McCAFFREY, JR.
          11377 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683
          Telephone: (310) 882 6407
          Facsimile: (310) 882 6359
          E-mail: tmccaffrey@tbmlaw.net
                  nchesler@tbmlaw.net


AMERICAN SCIENCE: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
American Science and Engineering, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 19,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a
memorandum of understanding has been reached in a class action
lawsuit.

As previously disclosed, (i) on June 20, 2016, American Science
and Engineering, Inc. (the "Company") entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with OSI Systems, Inc.
("OSI"), and its newly formed, wholly owned subsidiary, Apple
Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), providing for the merger of
Merger Sub into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company
surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of OSI, subject
to the terms and conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement and
(ii) on July 26, 2016, a putative class action complaint,
captioned Klein v. American Science and Engineering, Inc., et al.,
1:16-cv-11542 (D. Mass.), was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of a putative
class of the Company's shareholders challenging the Merger (the
"Federal Action").  The complaint in the Federal Action named as
defendants the Company and each member of the board of directors
of the Company (the "AS&E Board").  The complaint alleged that the
AS&E Board breached its fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders in connection with the Merger and sought injunctive
and declaratory relief, including declaring that the Merger
Agreement is unlawful and unenforceable, enjoining defendants from
proceeding with the Merger or rescinding, to the extent already
implemented, the Merger Agreement or any of the terms thereof.

On August 15, 2016, a second putative class action complaint,
which is substantively identical to that filed in the Federal
Action, captioned Klein v. v. American Science and Engineering,
Inc., et al., Civ. No. 16-2344 (Mass. Super. Ct.) (the "State
Action") was filed in the Superior Court Department for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the "Massachusetts State Court").

On August 19, 2016, the Company entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs in the Federal Action and the
State Action providing for the settlement of both lawsuits.  If
the proposed settlement is finally approved by the Massachusetts
State Court, it will release all claims in all actions, including
the Federal Action and the State Action, that were or could have
been brought challenging any aspect of the Merger or the Merger
Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith
(excluding any demand for appraisal under Part 13 of the
Massachusetts Business Corporation Act).

The Company believes that no further supplemental disclosure is
required under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk of the
lawsuits delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to
minimize the expense of defending such actions, it has agreed,
pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger, all of
which are set forth below and which should be read in conjunction
with the definitive proxy statement filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on July 15, 2016 (the "Proxy
Statement").

Subject to completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel
to the plaintiffs, the memorandum of understanding contemplates
that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The
stipulation of settlement contemplated by the parties will be
subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to the Company's shareholders. In the event that
the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will
be scheduled at which the Massachusetts State Court will consider
the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.

If the settlement is finally approved by the Massachusetts State
Court, it will resolve and release all claims that were or could
have been brought in any actions challenging any aspect of the
proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in
connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to
shareholders of the Company prior to final approval of the
settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the
parties contemplate the plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition
in the Massachusetts State Court for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses to be paid by the Company or its successor, which the
defendants may oppose.

The Company or its successor shall pay or cause to be paid any
attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Massachusetts State
Court. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately
enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Massachusetts
State Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were
to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may
be terminated.

The proposed settlement will not affect the amount of the merger
consideration that the Company's shareholders are entitled to
receive in the Merger or the timing of the special meeting of the
Company's shareholders, scheduled for August 31, 2016, to, among
other things, consider and vote upon a proposal to approve the
Merger Agreement.

                           *     *     *

On Sept. 12, 2016, OSI Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: OSIS) announced that
it has completed its previously announced acquisition of American
Science and Engineering, Inc.  OSI Systems acquired all issued and
outstanding shares of AS&E for $37.00 per share in cash and
assumed certain unvested AS&E equity awards for a total purchase
price of approximately $269 million.


ANCHOR DRILLING: "Stewart" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCIS STEWART, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ANCHOR DRILLING FLUIDS, USA, INC., Case No.
2:16-cv-01372-NBF (W.D. Pa., September 2, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Anchor Drilling Fluids USA, Inc., is an Oklahoma corporation doing
business throughout Pennsylvania.  Anchor Drilling provides
several oilfield drilling products and services.  Anchor Drilling
employs drilling fluids technicians, including the Plaintiff, to
carry out its work.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  dmoulton@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
          FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
          1150 Bissonnet St.
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
                  litkin@fibichlaw.com
                  adunlap@fibichlaw.com
                  jbresler@fibichlaw.com


APPLIANCE RECYCLING: "Feola" Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Appliance Recycling Centers Of America, Inc. continues to defend
against a class action lawsuit by Jason Feola, the Company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 16, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July
2, 2016.

On March 6, 2015, a complaint was filed in United States District
Court for the Central District of California by Jason Feola,
individually and as a representative of a class consisting of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between March 15, 2012
and February 11, 2015, against Appliance Recycling Centers of
America, Inc. and certain current and former officers of the
Company.  Mr. Feola, pursuant to terms of his retainer agreement
with The Rosen Law Firm, certified that he purchased 240 shares of
the Company's common stock for $984 in total consideration.

In May 2015, the Company and the individual defendants were served
the complaint. In July 2015, the Company and the individual
defendants received an amended complaint. The complaint alleges
that misstatements and omissions occurred in press releases and
filings by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission
and that these misstatements or omissions constitute violations of
Section 20 (a) and Section 10(b) of, and Rule 10b-5 under, the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

"This matter has been submitted to our insurance carrier and we
intend to contest vigorously the claims made in the complaint,"
the Company said.


APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Continues to Monitor Cases v. Whirlpool
------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Recycling Centers Of America, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
16, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2016, that the
Company is monitoring Whirlpool's defense of claims in a class
action lawsuit.

The Company said, "In February 2012, various individuals commenced
a class action lawsuit against Whirlpool Corporation ("Whirlpool")
and various distributors of Whirlpool products, including Sears,
The Home Depot, Lowe's and us, alleging certain appliances
Whirlpool sold through its distribution chain, which includes us,
were improperly designated with the ENERGY STAR(R) qualification
rating established by the U.S. Department of Energy and the
Environmental Protection Agency.  The claims against us include
breach of warranty claims, as well as various state consumer
protection claims.  The amount of the claim is, as yet,
undetermined.  Whirlpool has offered to fully indemnify and defend
its distributors in this lawsuit, including us, and has engaged
legal counsel to defend itself and the distributors.  We are
monitoring Whirlpool's defense of the claims and believe the
possibility of a material loss is remote."


ASHLEY FURNITURE: Class Certification Sought in "Dugan" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CHARISSA DUGAN, individually, and on
behalf of all employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., a corporation; STONELEDGE
FURNITURE, LLC a limited liability company; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01125-PA-FFM (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for certification of a class
consisting of:

     "all current and former hourly, non-exempt sales consultants
     who were employed by Defendant in the State of California
     during the period of May 11, 2012 through resolution of this
     action, and who were not reimbursed for personal cellular
     telephone expenses and losses incurred in the discharge of
     their duties."

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint Plaintiff's
counsel Quintilone and Associates to serve as counsel to the class
(Class Counsel), appoint Plaintiff as representative of the Class,
and authorize Notice to the Class of the pending action and its
members right to opt-out.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=p0di3com

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq.
          Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
          QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Road Suite 100
          Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961
          Telephone: (949) 458 9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458 9679
          E-mail: REQ@QUINTLAW.COM;
                  ABL@QUINTLAW.COM

The Defendants are represented by:

          J. Kevin Lilly, Esq.
          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          Simerdip Khangura, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553 0380
          Facsimile: (310) 553 5583
          E-mail: klilly@littler.com
                  slidman@littler.com
                  enguyen@littler.com
                  skhangura@littler.com


ASSET RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kalmenson" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hindy Kalmenson, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC and Bureaus
Investment Group Portfolio No. 15, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-04996-
MKB-JO (E.D.N.Y., September 8, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Defendants operate a collection agency located in Des Plaines,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maxim Maximov, Esq.
      MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (718) 395-3459
      Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
      E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


AT&T SERVICES: Training Manager Class Certified in "Walton" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled WENDELL WALTON, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
AT&T SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-03653-VC
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order partly
granting conditional class certification of:

     "group of employees in the job classifications of "Senior
     Training Manager Design" and "Senior Training Manager
     Delivery" subject to the arbitration and time frame
     restrictions in the complaint."

The Court also granted request by the plaintiffs for authorization
to provide formal notice to potential members of the collective
action.

The plaintiffs allege that employees in two job classifications at
AT&T, Senior Training Manager Design and Senior Training Manager
Delivery, were denied payment for overtime because they were
improperly classified as exempt from overtime payments under state
and federal law and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dVAfmH2I


BNT NAILS: "Monzon" Class Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Lissette Monzon and other
similarly situated individuals v. BNT Nails Salon #1, Inc. and
Tuongvi L. Nguyen, Case No. 16-019195-CA-01, was removed from the
11th Judicial Circuit to the U.S. District Court Southern District
of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:16-cv-23846-KMW to the proceeding.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

BNT Nails Salon #1, Inc. is a nail salon located at 137 Aragon
Ave, Coral Gables, FL 33134.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
      Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
              bshulman@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Ena Teresa Diaz, Esq.
      ENA T. DIAZ, P.A.
      999 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 720
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 377-8828
      Facsimile: (305) 356-1311
      E-mail: ediaz@enadiazlaw.com


BOSTON COLLEGE: "Capriola" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Glenn Capriola, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Trustees of Boston
College and The National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:16-cv-11431, was transferred from District of Massachusetts to
the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-08584 to the
proceeding.

Trustees of Boston College operate a private Jesuit Catholic
research university located in the village of Chestnut Hill,
Massachusetts.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association organizes the
athletic programs of many colleges and universities in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Tarricone, Esq.
      KREINDLER & KREINDLER
      855 Boylston Street
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 424-9100
      E-mail: atarricone@kreindler.com
The Defendant is represented by:

     John D. Hanify, Esq.
     Jones Day (Bos), Esq.
     100 High Street
     Boston, MA 02110
     Telephone: (617) 960-3939
     Facsimile: (212) 755-7306
     E-mail: jhanify@jonesday.com


BRANDREP INC: Court Strikes Bid to Certify Class in "Alan" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable David O. Carter entered an order striking a motion
for class certification filed in the lawsuit captioned Jason Alan
v. Brandrep Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-01040-DOC-DFM (C.D. Cal.).

On September 1, 2016, Plaintiff Jason Alan filed the Motion and
set the Motion for July 10, 2017.

According to the Court's civil minutes, there has been no Rule
26(f) Report filed with the Court setting a schedule, nor has the
Court approved dates in the Case.  Therefore, the Court strikes
the Motion.  The Plaintiff may again move for class certification
once dates have been set.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CjBkPoDP


BROOKHAVEN RETREAT: FLSA Class Cert. Sought in "Campbell" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled SUSAN CAMPBELL, SARAH BROOK BOHANNON, ANA
GARCIA-SMITH, CASANDRA HENLEY, and KRISTY MORICAL, individually,
collectively, and on behalf of similarly situated employees, the
Plaintiffs, v. BROOKHAVEN RETREAT, LLC, and JACQUELINE DAWES,
Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00424-JRG-HBG (E.D.
Tenn.), the Parties ask the Court for a step one certification of
Plaintiffs' collective action overtime claim
pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The FLSA Class is defined as:

     "persons who worked for Defendant Brookhaven Retreat, LLC,
      on or after May 31, 2013, the time period covered by this
      lawsuit, as Admission Liaisons, Business Development
      Professionals, or Program Counselors, and were paid as
      exempt employees in one or more work weeks."

The lawsuit arose under the FLSA for Defendants' alleged failure
to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees earned
overtime.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JNYpp1yc

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew S. Naylor, Esq.
          Brittany R. Stancombe, Esq.
          WALLER LANSDEN
          DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP
          Nashville City Center
          511 Union Street, Suite 2700
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 850 8578
          Facsimile: (615) 244 6804
          E-mail: andy.naylor@wallerlaw.com
                  brittany.stancombe@wallerlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jesse D. Nelson, Esq.
          Kayla L. Towe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF
          JESSE D. NELSON, PLLC
          9724 Kingston Pike, Suite 104
          Knoxville, TN 37922
          Telephone: (865) 383 1053
          E-mail: jesse@jessenelsonlaw.com
                  kayla@jessenelsonlaw.com


CEPHALON INC: 3rd Cir. Sends Provigil Case Back to Lower Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
kicking an antitrust case against the makers of narcolepsy drug
Provigil back to a lower court for a second look at whether the
litigation merits class action status, a split U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has detailed a new framework for
analyzing numerosity.

In a ruling on Sept. 13, the court did not entirely scrap the idea
of a potential class of direct purchasers of the wakefulness drug
-- rather, it noted that the small number of plaintiffs merits a
second look under a new framework to determine whether numerosity
was satisfied.

"Here, we are faced with a putative class of 22 large and
sophisticated corporations, most of which have multimillion-dollar
claims, who wish to take advantage of the class action device,"
Third Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith wrote in the court's opinion.
"While we do not foreclose the possibility of class status in this
case, or where the putative class is of similar composition,
plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that the
numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) has been satisfied."
The appellate ruling came after U.S. District Judge Mitchell S.
Goldberg of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania certified the
class in July, reasoning that class status was the most
appropriate way to serve judicial economy, given the exhaustive
discovery in the litigation and the need to avoid delay of trial.
However, Judge Smith said that focus was misplaced.

"On remand, when considering the judicial economy factor of the
numerosity analysis, the district court should not take into
account the sunk costs of the litigation or the need to further
delay trial were the class not to be certified," Judge Smith said.
"In other words, without considering the late stage of the
litigation, it should determine whether a class action would have
been a substantially more efficient mechanism of litigating this
suit than joinder of all parties.  This primarily involves
considerations of docket control, taking into account
practicalities as simple as that of every attorney making an
appearance on the record."

Additionally, Judge Smith said Goldberg failed to consider whether
it was cost-effective for all plaintiffs to take part in the
class, or if they'd even be motivated to join.

On remand, Judge Smith said, "factors that the district court may
consider include the financial resources of the class members, the
geographic dispersion of the class members, the ability to
identify future claimants, together with the fact that these
claims are for damages, and not injunctive relief."

In a concurring and dissenting opinion, Third Circuit Senior Judge
Marjorie Rendell said, "The majority concludes that the able
district court judge abused his discretion by purportedly focusing
on a consideration that we have never -- indeed, by my research,
no court has ever -- stated it should not consider.  How can that
be?"

She added, "Furthermore, how can it be that the majority
mischaracterizes the late stage of the proceedings as being the
focus of Judge Goldberg's ruling when his reasoning actually
focuses on the considerations that our case law dictates it
should? Also how can it be that in analyzing judicial economy
district courts are prohibited from considering the stage of the
proceedings? I am perplexed."

Bruce Gerstein -- bgerstein@garwingerstein.com -- of Garwin
Gerstein & Fisher in New York argued for the plaintiffs before the
Third Circuit.  A person answering The Legal's call to Gerstein
said the firm did not give comments to the media.

Evan R. Chesler -- echesler@cravath.com -- of Cravath, Swaine &
Moore argued on behalf of the defendants.  A spokesperson for the
firm did not return a call seeking comment.


CHAPA GATE: Faces "Porter" Suit Seeking "Unpaid" Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROJELIO H. PORTER AND CONSUELO PORTER Plaintiff, v. CHAPA GATE
GUARD SERVICE, LLC, CHESAPEAKE ENERGY MARKETING, LLC, Defendants,
Case 2:16-cv-00375 (S.D. Tex., September 5, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid wages that Defendants allegedly owe Plaintiffs and
similarly situated current and former gate guard workers under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY MARKETING, LLC provides natural gas marketing
services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Mauro F. Ruiz, Esq.
     RUIZ LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
     118 W. Pecan
     McAllen, TX 78501
     Phone: (956) 259-8200
     Fax: (956) 259-8203
     E-mail: mruiz@mruizlaw.com

        - and -

     Mr. Benjamin R. Guerra, Esq.
     BEN GUERRA LAW OFFICE PLLC
     902 E. Tyler Ave.
     Harlingen, TX 78550
     Phone: (956) 428-0300
     Fax: (956) 428-0332
     E-mail: bguerra@benguerralaw.com

        - and -

     Mr. Timothy Raub, Esq.
     RAUB LAW FIRM, P.C.
     814 Leopard Street
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Phone: (361) 880-8181
     Fax: (361) 887-6521
     E-mail: timraub@raublawfirm.com


CHUGACH GOVERNMENT: "Galloway" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CAROLYN GALLOWAY, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
CHUGACH GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00979-RDM (D.C.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to
conditionally approve a collective action and approve the notice
of certification.

Chugach provides operations, training, management, and maintenance
services for the U.S. Department of Labor.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NrYMtDte

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil S. Hyman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF
          NEIL S. HYMAN, LLC
          7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 500W
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (301) 841 7105
          Facsimile: (301) 907 9591
          E-mail: neil@neilhymanlaw.com


CNX GAS: "Kinney" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DAVID L. KINNEY and RAYMOND P. KINNEY,
individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiffs, CNX GAS COMPANY, LLC and NOBLE ENERGY,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv-00160-JPB (N.D. W.Va.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify this class for the purposes of
litigating the deduction of post-production costs at issue in the
case:

     "those West Virginia oil and gas mineral royalty interest
     owners whom have oil and gas mineral leases with CNX Gas
     Company, LLC and Noble Energy, Inc. which provide for the
     flat-rate deduction of post-production costs and whom have
     had post-production costs deducted from their royalty
     payments."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VlRuDhbZ

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James G. Bordas, Jr., Esq.
          Jason E. Causey, Esq.
          Jeremy M. Mcgraw, Esq.
          BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC
          1358 National Road
          Wheeling, WV 26003
          Telephone: (304) 242 8410

CNX Gas Company LLC is represented by:

          Charles F. Johns, Esq.
          Thomas J. Sengewalt, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON, PLLC
          400 White Oaks Blvd.
          Bridgeport, WV 26330
          E-mail: charles.johns@steptoe-johnson.com
                  thomas.sengewalt@steptoe-johnson.com

Noble Energy, Inc. is represented by:

          Albert Sebok, Esq.
          Rodney W. Stieger, Esq.
          Jackson Kelly, PLLC
          PO Box 553
          Charleston, WV 25322
          E-mail: asebok@jacksonkelly.com
                  rstieger@jacksonkelly.com


CORNERSTONE EQUITY: Arbitration Ruling in "Williams" Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PATRICIA J. WILLIAMS, v. CORNERSTONE EQUITY
PARTNERS, LLC, No. 0536, September Term, 2015 (Md. Ct. Spec.
App.), the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the
judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City which dismissed
Patricia J. Williams' action against Cornerstone Equity Partners,
LLC, in favor of arbitration.

Williams is a debtor, representing a class of plaintiffs against
whom Cornerstone, a debt purchaser and collector, obtained
judgments in the courts of Maryland between October 30, 2007, and
December 15, 2010.  Williams' complaint asserted that the
collection judgment against her was void because Cornerstone had
failed to obtain a license to do business as a collection agency.

On November 17, 2014, Cornerstone filed a Petition to Dismiss or
Stay Proceedings and Order for Arbitration.  Cornerstone directed
the court to the Cardmember Agreement, which contained an
arbitration agreement.  Cornerstone also asserted that Williams
had waived her right to participate in a class action in the
Cardmember Agreement.

Williams opposed the petition, asserting that Cornerstone failed
to adequately prove the existence of the arbitration agreement,
that Cornerstone waived its right to arbitration by pursuing its
debt collection action in the district court, and that Cornerstone
could not rely on the provisions of the contract, prior to the
judgment, because the contract merged into the judgment.

On April 21, 2015, the circuit court entered an order dismissing
the case, in favor of arbitration.

On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals held that the fact that
Cornerstone pursued its debt collection action against Williams
through litigation, rather than arbitration, is not sufficient to
support the conclusion that it intended to waive its right to
arbitrate other issues that might arise under the Cardmember
Agreement.  The appellate court found that Cornerstone's waiver is
limited to its right to invoke arbitration as to the debt
collection which, in effect, is a claim for breach of contract, as
opposed to Williams' suit which is based upon Cornerstone's
alleged violations of Maryland licensing laws.

The appellate court was also unpersuaded by Williams' contention
that Cornerstone waived its right to arbitration because it "did
not seek arbitration right away" and "used the circuit court's
subpoena power" to obtain the Cardmember Agreement.  The appellate
court noted that Cornerstone filed its Petition to Dismiss or Stay
Proceedings and Order for Arbitration on November 17, 2014 -- only
three days after it was served process on Williams' complaint.

Williams' merger contentions also failed to persuade the appellate
court, considering that the judgment Cornerstone obtained against
Williams in the district court was based on the claim that
Williams breached her contractual duty, under the Cardmember
Agreement, to make payments on her account, while Williams' claims
arise from Cornerstone's alleged violation of a regulatory
statute.

Lastly, the appellate court also dismissed Williams's final
contention on appeal that the court erred in dismissing the action
in favor of arbitration because the Cardmember Agreement was
obtained in violation of sections 1-301-306 of the Financial
Institutions Article.  The appellate court found that there is
nothing in Fin. Inst. section 1-305 that suggests that exclusion
of evidence is a sanction for violating the statute.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's September 7, 2016 order
is available at https://is.gd/JOQlWD from Leagle.com.


CRIUS ENERGY: Staunches Seeks Certification of FLSA Class in Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Staunches moves the Court to conditionally certify the
action entitled JESSICA STAUNCHES, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated v. CRIUS ENERGY MANAGEMENT,LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability, Case No. 8:16-cv-01941-SDM-AAS (M.D. Fla.),
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and to authorize that notice be
sent to all similarly situated putative class members.

Ms. Staunches proposes Notice be sent to these aggrieved workers:

     All hourly paid customer care employees who were employed by
     Crius at its Florida location from [three years prior to
     Order granting Notice] to the present.

For years, Crius has violated the FLSA by not paying complete
overtime compensation to its hourly paid customer care employees,
by paying compensable breaks as a separate line item on their
paychecks and by not including the compensable break time in their
hours worked totals for overtime calculations, Ms. Staunches
alleges.  She informs the Court that to date, six individuals have
joined the Action and four have submitted declarations in support
of the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qBJxmpFp

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Laura Prather, Esq.
          Andrew R. Lincoln, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS, PC
          100 South Ashley Ave., Suite 2200
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 512-3225
          E-mail: laura.prather@jacksonlewis.com
                  Andrew.lincoln@jacksonlewis.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: TMT Mild Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
------------------------------------------------------
TMT MILD APARTMENTS INC. (METROPOLITAN AT CITYPLACE), the
Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant,
Case No. DC-16-11218 (Dal. Cty. Ct., Sep. 6, 2016), seeks monetary
relief of $100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non-monetary
relief (correction of the appraisal roll as it pertains to
Plaintiffs property).

In May 2016, Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had
made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use
by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised
the value of the Property at $20,739,880.

The value placed on the Property represents a value in excess of
fair market value. The appraised value is unfair and
discriminatory, arrived at through the adoption, application, use
and enforcement of a fundamentally erroneous and unlawful plan,
method and formula of valuation and assessment says the complaint.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
          Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
          Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq.
          GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
          One Bent Tree Tower
          16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
          Addison, TX 75001-6837
          Telephone: (972) 931 9901
          Facsimile: (972) 931 9208
          E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
                  jtobin@gpd.com
                  mkrasoff@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: "Verhalen" Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
--------------------------------------------------------
TRICIA ANN VERHALEN, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11217 (Dal. Cty. Ct., Sep.
6, 2016), asks the Court to fix appraised value of Plaintiff's
Property in accordance with the requirement of law pursuant to
Texas Tax Code.

On May 1, 2076, Plaintiff was notified by Defendant that the value
of the Property had been appraised for 2016 at $1,513,560.
The Property's appraised value according to the appraisal roll
allegedly exceeds the correct market value as of January 1, 2016.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua E. Estes, Esq.
          Niral R. Gandhi, Esq.
          ESTES & GANDHI PC
          1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4610
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 272 8030
          Facsimile: (214) 390 3303
          E-mail: jestes@estesgandhi.com
                  ngandhi@estesgandhi.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Prim Turnpike Suit Over Appraisal Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prim Turnpike West, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case
No. DC-16-11342 (Dal. Cty. Ct., September 8, 2016), seeks to stop
the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that
exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal
required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      One Bent Tree Tower 16475
      Dallas Parkway, Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Telephone: (972) 931-9901
      Facsimile: (972) 931-9208
      E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com
              mkrasoff@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Regency Suit Over Appraisal Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
Regency Medical Plaza, LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Case No. DC-16-11352 (Dal. Cty. Ct., September 8, 2016), seeks to
stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value
that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of
appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
      THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
      302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 742-4800
      Facsimile: (214) 452-9064
      E-mail: JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces RRE Fairways Suit Over Appraisal Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
RRE Fairways of Bent Tree Holdings, LLC v. Dallas Central
Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-11361 (Dal. Cty. Ct., September
8, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing
property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the
median level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
      THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
      302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 742-4800
      Facsimile: (214) 452-9064
      E-mail: JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces RS Hunting Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
RS Hunting Ridge Apartments, LLC and RS Hunting Ridge Brauburger,
LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-11382
(Dal. Cty. Ct., September 8, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at
least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Lang, Esq.
      Heather H. Lang, Esq,
      LANG LAW OFFICE, PC
      PO Box 261330
      Plano, TX 75026
      Telephone: (972) 731-6758
      Facsimile: (469) 854-3336


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Sealy SW Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sealy SW Carrollton, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Case No. DC-16-11340 (Dal. Cty. Ct., September 8, 2016), seeks to
stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value
that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of
appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      One Bent Tree Tower 16475
      Dallas Parkway, Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Telephone: (972) 931-9901
      Facsimile: (972) 931-9208
      E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com
              mkrasoff@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces TC Knox Class Suit Over Appraisal Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
TC Knox Heights, LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No.
DC-16-11358 ((Dal. Cty. Ct., September 8, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that
exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal
required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
      THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
      302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 742-4800
      Facsimile: (214) 452-9064
      E-mail: JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces HTA-FP Tower Suit Over Appraisal Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
HTA - FP Tower, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No.
DC-16-11353 (Dal. Cty. Ct., September 8, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that
exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal
required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
      THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
      302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 742-4800
      Facsimile: (214) 452-9064
      E-mail: JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Vpust Hotel Suit Over Appraisal Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vpust Hotel L.P. v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No.
DC-16-11339 (Dal. Cty. Ct., September 8, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that
exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal
required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq.
      Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      One Bent Tree Tower 16475
      Dallas Parkway, Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Telephone: (972) 931-9901
      Facsimile: (972) 931-9208
      E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com
              mkrasoff@gpd.com
              jtobin@gpd.com


DBI O&M: Sued by Sibley Over Racial Discrimination & Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------------
LENNARD SIBLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. DBI O&M COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-00075-DCB-MTP
(S.D. Miss., September 2, 2016), seeks all relief due to the
Plaintiff pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because of the
Defendant's alleged unlawful discrimination based on race and
unlawful retaliation for the Plaintiff's reporting of unlawful
employment practices.

Mr. Sibley is an African American male and a resident and citizen
of the state of Mississippi.  He worked for the Defendant for two
years as a Hammer Mill Operator at the Amite plant.

DBI O&M Company, LLC, is a Foreign Limited Liability Company
authorized to and doing business in the state of Mississippi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert O. Waller, Esq.
          WALLER & WALLER, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          220 South President Street (39201)
          Post Office Box 4
          Jackson, MS 39205-0004
          Telephone: (601) 354-5252
          Facsimile: (601) 354-2681
          E-mail: BobWaller@wallerandwaller.com


DELTA AIR: Has Until Nov. 15 for Discovery of Named Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson entered an order in the lawsuit
styled Lopez et al., the Plaintiffs, v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-07302-SVW-SS (C.D. Cal.), deferring
Plaintiff's motion to certify a class of:

     "all non-exempt employees from Departments 120 and 125
     employed by Delta since July 1, 2011."

According to Judge Wilson, the Plaintiffs attempt to hastily
remedy adequacy issues by adding Karl Armstrong as named Plaintiff
in their reply brief filed a month ago. The Court cannot seriously
evaluate the adequacy of Armstrong based on the short notice and
with no discovery yet taken by the Defendant. Further, the
Defendant does not point to any conflict with Plaintiff Narr and
the Court has no reason to believe the Plaintiff is inadequate.
However the rest of the named Plaintiffs create a conflict with
the class and are disqualified as representative.

The Defendants have 60 days, until November 15, 2016, to take
further discovery of any remaining named Plaintiffs. On or before
November 25, 2016, both parties will file simultaneous
supplementary brief, not to exceed ten pages in length. A renewed
hearing on the motion for class certification will be held on
December 5, 2016 at 1:30 p.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=W2lSpooj


E.S. MEDICAL: Mussat Seeks Certification of Class in TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Florence Mussat asks the Court to enter an order certifying that
the matter entitled FLORENCE MUSSAT, M.D., S.C., individually and
on behalf of similarly situated persons v. E.S. MEDICAL SUPPLIES
AND EQUIPMENT INC., and DOES 1-3, Case No. 1:16-cv-01240 (N.D.
Ill.), may proceed as a class action against the Defendants based
on the Plaintiff's receipt of a form unsolicited fax advertisement
that also does not contain an opt-out notice that complies with
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  The Plaintiff asks the
Court to certify the class defined as:

     All persons who were successfully sent a fax in the form of
     Exhibit A, advertising products available at
     www.esmedical.com "offering 2 discounts on all products for
     all of 2016!"

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eIETW8Wr

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
          WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
          350 S. Northwest Hwy., Suite 300
          Park Ridge, IL 60068
          Telephone: (847) 701-5290
          E-mail: cwarner@warnerlawllc.com


EVENTURES INT'L: "Pino" Suit Seeks to Recover Tips and Gratuities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANA PINO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. EVENTURES INTERNATIONAL INC.; SERGIO A. PENNACHIO; and any
other related entities, Case No. 157452/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New
York Cty., September 6, 2016), is brought pursuant to the New York
Labor Law and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations to recover
alleged unlawfully retained tips and gratuities owed to the
Plaintiff and others, who are presently or were formerly employed
by the Defendants.

Eventures International Inc. is a New York domestic business
corporation headquartered in Yonkers, New York.  The Company is
engaged in the hospitality industry.  Sergio A. Pennachio is an
officer or owner of the Company.  The Defendants contracted with
customers to cater events, including parties, birthdays,
gatherings, holidays, celebrations, weddings, anniversaries, bar
mitzvahs and other parties or occasions at its catering venues
including but not limited to the facility commonly known as the
Alder Manor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  jbrown@lmblaw.com
                  mtompkins@lmblaw.com


FANTECH SOFTWARE: Class Certification Sought in "Amini" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned KEVIN AMINI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. FANTECH
SOFTWARE, INC. DBA FANPICKS, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-
00915-CJC-JCG (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff move the Court to certify
a class consisting of:

     "all persons within the United States who received any
     unsolicited text messages from Defendant without prior
     express consent."

The Plaintiff further moves the Court for appointment of Plaintiff
as Class Representative, and for appointment of Plaintiffs'
attorneys as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AOvawPlZ

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: 877 206 4741
          Facsimile: 866 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David G. Hagopian, Esq.
          CAROTHERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP
          601 Montgomery Street, Suite 350
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 981 3233


FCI LENDER: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lazar" Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Lazar, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. FCI Lender Services, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-04987
(E.D.N.Y., September 8, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

FCI Lender Services, Inc. operates a loan servicing company
headquartered at 8180 E Kaiser Blvd, Anaheim, CA 92808.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
      735 Central Avenue
      Woodmere, NY 11598
      Telephone: (516) 668-6945
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com

FIRST CHINESE: Ramirez Guzman Seeks to Recover Wages Under NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALVARO RAMIREZ GUZMAN, ELIDA AGUSTINA MEJIA HERRERA and LETICIA
PANAMA RIVAS, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. THE FIRST CHINESE PRESBYTERIAN COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS HOME ATTENDANT CORPORATION, or any other related entities,
Case No. 157401/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., September 2,
2016), seeks to recover wages and benefits, which the Plaintiffs
allegedly were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive
pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

The action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a putative
class of individuals, who are presently or were formerly employed
by THE FIRST CHINESE PRESBYTERIAN COMMUNITY AFFAIRS HOME ATTENDANT
CORPORATION, or any other related entities, to provide personal
care, assistance, health-related tasks and other home care
services to the Defendant's clients within the state of New York.

First Chinese is a business corporation incorporated under the
laws of the state of New York, with its principal location in New
York City.  The Defendant is primarily engaged in providing
nursing and home health aide services at the residences of its
clients.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
          Michele A. Moreno, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com
                  mmoreno@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Carmela Huang, Esq.
          Tito Sinha, Esq.
          URBAN JUSTICE CENTER
          123 Williams Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (646) 459-3021
          Facsimile: (212) 533-4598
          E-mail: chuang@urbanjustice.org
                  tsinha@urbanjustice.org


FONTANA PAPER: "Ordaz" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR ORDAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FONTANA PAPER MILLS, INC, and DOES 1-
100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC632856 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sep. 6, 2016), seeks to recover, among other things, (1) unpaid
wages, (2) premium pay for missed rest periods; (3) penalties for
failure to maintain accurate wage statements (3) wages and
penalties for failure to pay all wages owed at the time of
termination, (4) reporting time pay, and interest, attorneys'
fees, penalties, costs, and expenses pursuant to the California
Labor Code, Business & Professions Code, and Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was not paid of his full
hourly rate for all hours actually worked. His wage statements
were not accurate because the hourly rate memorialized in his wage
statements were artificially reduced to make the illegal
deductions.

Fontana Paper is an independent manufacturer of asphalt saturated
underlayments. Based in Fontana, California, Fontana Paper Mills
is family owned and services distributors throughout the west
coast region with the highest in quality saturated and coated
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chad Biggins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHAD BIGGINS
          3701 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 410
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: 213-387-3100
          Facsimile: 213-387-3101
          E-mail: chadbiggins@gmail.com


GODADDY.COM LLC: Class Certification Sought in "Bennett" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JASON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GODADDY.COM, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00291-N (S.D. Ala.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to certify a class of:

     "all persons within the United States who, since two years
     prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of
     the certification of a class, received a call placed to a
     cellular telephone line by or on behalf of Defendant that
     included or introduced an advertisement or constituted
     telemarketing, and was initiated using an automatic
     telephone dialing system, absent the prior express written
     consent of the called party to receive such calls."

GoDaddy is a publicly traded Internet domain registrar and web
hosting company.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nwhH0AGp

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John R. Cox, Esq.
          9786-A Timber Circle
          Spanish Fort, AL 36527
          Telephone: (251) 517 4753
          E-mail: jrc@jrcoxlaw.com


GOYA FOODS: Must Defend Against Breach of Warranty Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San
Francisco, September 8, refused to dismiss breach of warranty
claims in a putative class action accusing Goya Foods of selling
squid as octopus, and dismissed other counts with leave to amend.

Plaintiff avers that he purchased Defendant's Octopus Products on
Amazon.com "in reliance on the representation that [the products]
contained octopus."  "Independent DNA testing [has] determined,"
however, that Defendant's "Octopus Products [were] actually jumbo
squid and not octopus."  Plaintiff alleges that he would not have
purchased Defendant's Octopus Products had he known that they were
made of squid.

Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on May 11, 2016. The
complaint asserts nine causes of action: (1) breach of express
warranty, (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability,
(3) breach of the implied warranty of fitness, (4) unjust
enrichment, (5) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act ("CLRA"), (6) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), (7) violation of California's False Advertising Law
("FAL"), (8) negligent misrepresentation, and (9) fraud.

Plaintiff brings his CLRA, UCL, and FAL claims on behalf of
himself and a putative subclass of all persons who purchased
Octopus Products in California.  Plaintiff brings his other claims
on behalf of himself and a putative class of all persons in the
United States who purchased Octopus Products. Defendant moved to
dismiss the complaint on July 11, 2016. Plaintiff filed a response
on August 15, 2016, and Defendant filed a reply on August 25,
2016.

The case is captioned, LUIS DIEGO ZAPATA FONSECA, Plaintiff, v.
GOYA FOODS INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-02559-LHK (N.D. Cal.)

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://is.gd/G60MDv from Leagle.com.


HARRIS COUNTY: MCRT Houston Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
---------------------------------------------------------
MCRT HOUSTON 1 LP, the Plaintiff. v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-59638 (Harris Cty. Ct.,
Sep. 6, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $200,000-1,000,000
resulting from the Defendant's excess appraised value of the
Plaintiff's property.

The Plaintiff alleges that the 2016 value of the Property
constitutes an unequal appraisal of the Property in that the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds, by at least 10%, the
median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative
sample of other properties or a sample of other properties.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond Gray, Esq.
          Lorri Michel, Esq.
          Shane Rogers, Esq.
          Natalie A. Maloney, Esq.
          MICHELLE & GRAY, LLP
          812 W. 11th Street, Suite 301
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 477 0200
          Facsimile: (512) 477 6636
          E-mail: raymond@michelgray.com
                  lorri@michelgray.com
                  shane@michelgray.com
                  natalie@michelgray.com


HARRIS COUNTY: Multifamily 2 Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
----------------------------------------------------------
MULTIFAMILY 2 - MIRA BELLA APARTMENTS MASTER LESSEE, LLC (Mira
Bella and San Martin Apartments), the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-59625 (Harris
Cty. Ct., Sep. 6, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less
(attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief (correction of the
appraisal roll as it pertains to Plaintiffs property).

In May 2016, Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had
made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use
by the relevant Taxing Units in Harris County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised
the value of the Property at $13,584,116, an amount in excess of
the appraised value required by law.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
          Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
          Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq.
          GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
          One Bent Tree Tower
          16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
          Addison, TX 75001-6837
          Telephone: (972) 931 9901
          Facsimile: (972) 931 9208
          E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
                  jtobin@gpd.com
                  mkrasoff@gpd.com


HARRIS COUNTY: Westdale North Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
-----------------------------------------------------------
WESTDALE NORTH PARK TX, LP (North Park Apartments) AND WESTDALE
CYPRESS CREEK TX, LP (Cypress Creek Apartments), the Plaintiff, v.
HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-
59570 (Harris Cty. Ct., Sep. 6, 2016), seeks monetary relief of
$100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief
(correction of the appraisal roll as it pertains to Plaintiffs
property).

In May 2016, Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had
made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use
by the relevant Taxing Units in Harris County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised
the value of the Property at $19,818,568, an amount in excess of
the appraised value required by law.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
          Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
          Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq.
          GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
          One Bent Tree Tower
          16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
          Addison, TX 75001-6837
          Telephone: (972) 931 9901
          Facsimile: (972) 931 9208
          E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
                  jtobin@gpd.com
                  mkrasoff@gpd.com


HARRIS COUNTY: Sidra Riverway Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
-----------------------------------------------------------
SIDRA RIVERWAY, LLC, FORMERLY KNOWN AS TWO RIVERWAY HOLDINGS LLC
(Two Riverway), the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-59574 (Harris Cty. Ct.,
Sep. 6, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less
(attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief.

In May 2016, Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had
made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use
by the relevant Taxing Units in Harris County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised
the value of the Property at $77,259,367.

The value placed on the Property represents a value in excess of
fair market value. The appraised value is unfair and
discriminatory, arrived at through the adoption, application, use
and enforcement of a fundamentally erroneous and unlawful plan,
method and formula of valuation and assessment

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
          Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
          Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq.
          GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
          One Bent Tree Tower
          16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
          Addison, TX 75001-6837
          Telephone: (972) 931 9901
          Facsimile: (972) 931 9208
          E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
                  jtobin@gpd.com
                  mkrasoff@gpd.com


HARRIS COUNTY: TXHP Humble Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
--------------------------------------------------------
TXHP HUMBLE LLC, the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-59639 (Harris Cty. Ct.,
Sep. 6, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $ 200,000-1,000,000
resulting from the Defendant's excess appraised value of the
Plaintiff's property.

The Plaintiff alleges that the 2016 value of the Property
constitutes an unequal appraisal of the Property in that the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds, by at least 10%, the
median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative
sample of other properties or a sample of other properties.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond Gray, Esq.
          Lorri Michel, Esq.
          Shane Rogers, Esq.
          Natalie A. Maloney, Esq.
          MICHELLE & GRAY, LLP
          812 W. 11th Street, Suite 301
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 477 0200
          Facsimile: (512) 477 6636
          E-mail: raymond@michelgray.com
                  lorri@michelgray.com
                  shane@michelgray.com
                  natalie@michelgray.com


HARRIS COUNTY: Westdale Bear Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
----------------------------------------------------------
WESTDALE BEAR CREEK TX LP AND WESTDALE PARKS AT WOODLAKE TX LP
(Bear Creeks and Park at Woodlake Apartments), the Plaintiff, v.
HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-
59561 (Harris Cty. Ct., Sep. 6, 2016), seeks monetary relief of
$100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief.

In May 2016, Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had
made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use
by the relevant Taxing Units in Harris County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised
the value of the Property at $36,432,557.

The value placed on the Property represents a value in excess of
fair market value. The appraised value is unfair and
discriminatory, arrived at through the adoption, application, use
and enforcement of a fundamentally erroneous and unlawful plan,
method and formula of valuation and assessment

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
          Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
          Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq.
          GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
          One Bent Tree Tower
          16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
          Addison, TX 75001-6837
          Telephone: (972) 931 9901
          Facsimile: (972) 931 9208
          E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
                  jtobin@gpd.com
                  mkrasoff@gpd.com


HARRIS COUNTY: Sidra Woodway Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
----------------------------------------------------------
SIDRA WOODWAY, LLC, FORMERLY KNOWN AS 49 WOODWAY, LLC (4900
Woodway Drive), the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-59628 (Harris Cty. Ct.,
Sep. 6, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less
(attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief.

In May 2016, Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had
made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use
by the relevant Taxing Units in Harris County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised
the value of the Property at $18,336,997.

The value placed on the Property represents a value in excess of
fair market value. The appraised value is unfair and
discriminatory, arrived at through the adoption, application, use
and enforcement of a fundamentally erroneous and unlawful plan,
method and formula of valuation and assessment

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
          Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
          Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq.
          GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
          One Bent Tree Tower
          16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
          Addison, TX 75001-6837
          Telephone: (972) 931 9901
          Facsimile: (972) 931 9208
          E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
                  jtobin@gpd.com
                  mkrasoff@gpd.com


HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Sun Life Suit Over Appraisal Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and Sun Life Financial
Services Company, Inc. v. Harris County Appraisal District, Case
No. 2016-60340 (D. Tex., September 8, 2016), is an action for
damages as a result of the Defendant's failure to appraise the
Plaintiff's property at its market value.

Harris County Appraisal District is responsible for appraising
taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory J. Dalton, Esq.
      GREGORY J. DALTON, PC
      P.O. Box 109
      Katy, TX 77492
      Telephone: (281) 391-1985
      Facsimile: (281) 391-1987
      E-mail: greg@gdaltonlaw.com


HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Misclassifies Employees, "Vega" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MILKA VEGA, on her own behalf and for all others similarly
situated v. HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP, INC., Case No. 8:16-cv-
02562-JDW-JSS (M.D. Fla., September 2, 2016), alleges that the
Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff, paying her a weekly salary,
exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

HSG is a foreign corporation registered to do business in Florida.
HSG is a corporation providing housekeeping, laundry, dining, and
nutrition services to various healthcare facilities in 47 states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          201 N. Franklin Street, #700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


HOME DEPOT: Court Rules on Class Certification in "Casey" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Amy Casey, the Plaintiff v. Home Depot et
al., the Defendant, Case No. 5:14-cv-02069-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order:

     (1) denying in part and reserving ruling in part on
         Plaintiff's motion to certify a class;

     (2) denying Plaintiff's motion to strike class member
         declarations and to disqualify counsel;

     (3) denying Defendants' motion to strike declaration of
         David Lewin;

     (4) denying Defendants' motion for reconsideration;

     (5) granting Defendants' motion to exclude expert report of
         David Lewin; and

     (6) directing supplemental briefing regarding Plaintiff's
         motion to certify a class (in chambers)

The Court directed each party to submit one supplemental brief not
to exceed 10 pages addressing whether Plaintiff has satisfied the
requirements for class certification with respect to her ninth
cause of action insofar as it challenges Home Depot's Compensation
Plan's provisions regarding mileage reimbursement. Both parties
shall submit their supplemental briefs by September 22, 2016 at
5:00 p.m.

Plaintiff asserted, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, 12 wage-and-hour-related causes of action against
Defendants arising out of her employment: (1) failure to pay wages
and related overtime compensation; (2) failure to pay commissions;
(3) unlawful provision of compensation time; (4) failure to
provide meal periods; (5) failure to provide rest periods; (6)
failure to provide itemized statements; (7) failure to maintain
accurate pay records; (8) failure to pay wages upon termination;
(9) failure to reimburse lawful business expenses; (10) violation
of the California Unfair Competition Law; (11) failure to comply
with records request; and (12) violation of the California Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

The Plaintiff sought to certify a class defined as:

     "645 individuals employed as Sales Consultants by Defendants
     in California from July 14, 2010 to the present, for
     purposes of Plaintiff's first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth,
     seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth causes of action."

The Defendants, among other things, contend that Plaintiff fails
to satisfy predominance requirement because Plaintiff's claim
requires individualized determinations as to whether each
Proposed Class Member was aware they could be reimbursed for more
than $6 in weekly cell phone expenses.  The Plaintiff fails to
satisfy predominance requirement. The Plaintiff does not claim
Defendants' reimbursement policies themselves are unlawful.
Instead, Plaintiff presents evidence suggesting some Proposed
Class Members were either not reimbursed for their cell phone
expenses according to the Compensation Plan or were not aware they
could be reimbursed for more than $6 in weekly expenses. Even
assuming these facts give rise to a violation of California Labor
Code, individualized determinations of fact are required as to
whether each Proposed Class Member was reimbursed for their
expenses or was aware they could be reimbursed more than $6 per
week.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pNJha9lK

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daren Lipinsky, Esq.
          J.E. Losavio, Jr., Law Office of
          Oakland, CA 94661
          E-mail: dlipinsky@aol.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Quintilone, II, Esq.
          Avin B. Lindsay, Esq.
          QUINTILONE AND ASSOCIATES
          18111 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 825
          Irvine, CA 926127122
          E-mail: abl@quintlaw.com
                  req@quintlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joel M. Cohn, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          Robert S. Strauss Building
          1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036-1564
          E-mail: Jcohn@akingump.com


HUMANADENTAL INSURANCE: Class Certification Hearing Set for Oct 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Lawrence S. Brodsky, the Plaintiff, v.
HumanaDental Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:10-cv-
03233 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge John Robert Blakey entered an
order taking under advisement:

     1. Defendant's motion for leave to file 8th and 9th
        Affirmative Defenses;

     2. Plaintiff's motion to certify class; and

     3. Defendant's motion to dismiss.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 15,
2016, a motion hearing is held on that day. Another status hearing
is set for October 5, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1725. The
Parties should be prepared to report on settlement discussions at
the next hearing.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JQi8KV4y


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Faces Securities Suits in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that service of the
initiating papers in class action shareholder federal securities
cases has not been made on the Company.

Two purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely,
Fergus v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-03335, filed
June 9, 2016; and Becker v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-
cv-03374, filed June 10, 2016. These cases arise from the same
alleged facts and circumstances, and seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of our common stock between April 20, 2016
and June 2, 2016 (with respect to the Fergus matter) and between
April 20, 2016 and June 3, 2016 (with respect to the Becker
matter). These cases concern the Company's statements in press
releases, investor conference calls, and SEC filings beginning in
April 2016 that the Company would present updated information
regarding its IMMU-132 breast cancer drug at the 2016 American
Society of Clinical Oncology ("ASCO") conference in Chicago,
Illinois.  The complaints allege that these statements were false
and misleading in light of June 2, 2016 reports that ASCO had
cancelled the presentation because it contained previously
reported information.  The complaints further allege that these
statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for our common
stock, and that the Company and certain of its officers are thus
liable under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  As of the date hereof, service of the initiating
papers in these actions has not been made on the Company.


JOY GLOBAL: Faces "Rote" Suit Arising From Merger With Komatsu
--------------------------------------------------------------
LOREEN ROTE, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. JOY GLOBAL INC., EDWARD L. DOHENY II, JOHN N. HANSON,
STEVEN L. GERARD, RICHARD B. LOYND, P. ERIC SIEGERT, JAMES H.
TATE, GALE E. KLAPPA, JOHN T. GREMP, and MARK J. GLIEBE, Case No.
2:16-cv-01186 (E.D. Wisc., September 2, 2016), arises from the
July 21, 2016 entry by Joy Global into a definitive merger
agreement with Komatsu America Corp. and Pine Solutions Inc.,
pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company,
with the Company surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary
of Komatsu America.

Joy Global, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal executive
offices located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  Founded in 1884, Joy
Global is widely regarded as a worldwide leader in high-
productivity mining solutions.  Through its surface and
underground business segments, Joy Global manufactures and
services mining equipment for extraction of coal, copper, iron
ore, oil sands, gold, and other minerals and ores worldwide.  The
Company's brands include P&H, Joy and Montabert.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Komatsu America Corp. is the U.S.-based subsidiary of the Japanese
multinational corporation of Komatsu Ltd.  Pine Solutions Inc. is
a wholly owned subsidiary of Komatsu America ("Merger Sub").

Based in Tokyo, Japan, Komatsu is a provider of industrial-use
products and services, including construction and mining
equipment, industrial machinery and vehicles, logistics,
electronics, and other solutions-based operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Guri Ademi, Esq.
          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com
                  sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          206 Covington Street
          Madisonville, LA 70447
          Telephone: (504) 455-1400
          Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
          E-mail: Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com


KELLY SERVICES: Holmes Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TRACIE HOLMES, individually, and on behalf
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. KELLY SERVICES
USA, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, and KELLY
SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-13164-MFL-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff moves, pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), for entry of an order:

     (1) conditionally certifying the proposed FLSA collective;

     (2) implementing a procedure whereby Court-authorized notice
         of Plaintiff's FLSA claim is sent (via first-class mail
         and e-mail) to:

          "all current and former hourly call center agents who
          worked for Kelly Services USA, LLC or Kelly Services,
          Inc. at any time in the past three years"; and

     (3) requiring Defendants to identify all potential opt-in
         Plaintiffs by providing their names, last known
         addresses, dates of employment, job titles, phone
         numbers, and e-mail addresses in an electronic and
         importable format within 10 days of the entry of the
         order.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VPPqd9dB

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jesse L. Young, Esq.
         SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
         One Towne Square, Suite 1700
         Southfield, MI 48076
         Telephone: (248) 355 0300
         E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com


KEY ENERGY: Motion for Class Certification Due Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the plaintiff in the
third class action case must file the motion for class
certification by September 30, 2016.

Between May of 2013 and June of 2014, five lawsuits (four class
actions and one enforcement action) were filed in California
involving alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws.
In general, the lawsuits allege failure to pay wages, including
overtime and minimum wages, failure to pay final wages upon
employment terminations in a timely manner, failure to reimburse
reasonable and necessary business expenses, failure to provide
wage statements consistent with California law, and violations of
the California meal and break period laws, among other claims. Two
of the five cases have been consolidated in United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

On December 22, 2015, that court issued an order granting in part
and denying in part a class certification motion. The court
initially certified a class of hourly paid, non-exempt oilfield
employees who allege they did not receive reimbursement for all
business expenses and allege they did not receive all rest breaks
required by California law.

On July 6, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration, and certified additional claims alleging that the
wage statements were inaccurate and the overtime was improperly
calculated. The court did not determine whether Key is liable to
any of the class members.

The plaintiff in the third case must file the motion for class
certification by September 30, 2016, and that motion is scheduled
to be heard on February 6, 2017.

The fourth case is waiting for a decision regarding whether it
will move forward in California state court or in federal court.
The fifth case was dismissed on July 19, 2016.

"We have investigated the claims in the four remaining lawsuits,
and intend to vigorously defend them.  Because these cases are at
an early stage, we cannot estimate any possible loss or range of
loss," the Company said.


KEY ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff's Deadline to Appeal Expired
-------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the deadline for the
lead plaintiff to appeal the dismissal of its case has expired.

In August 2014, two class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
against the Company and certain officers of the Company, alleging
violations of federal securities laws, specifically, violations of
Section 10(b) thereunder and Rule 10(b)-5 thereunder, and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Those lawsuits were
styled as follows: Sean Cady, Individually and on Behalf of All
Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Key Energy Services, Inc.,
Richard J. Alario, and J. Marshall Dodson, No. 4:14-cv-2368, filed
on August 15, 2014; and Ian W. Davidson, Individually and on
Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Key Energy
Services, Inc., Richard J. Alario, and J. Marshall Dodson, No.
4.14-cv-2403, filed on August 21, 2014.

On December 11, 2014, the Court entered an order that consolidated
the two lawsuits into one action, along with any future filed tag-
along actions brought on behalf of purchasers of Key Energy
Services, Inc. common stock. The order also appointed Inter-Local
Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff in the class action and
approved the law firm of Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. as
lead counsel for the consolidated class and Kendall Law Group,
LLP, as local counsel for the consolidated class.

The lead plaintiff filed the consolidated amended complaint on
February 13, 2015. Among other changes, the consolidated amended
complaint added Taylor M. Whichard III and Newton W. Wilson III as
defendants, and sought to represent a class of purchasers of the
Company's stock between September 4, 2012 and July 17, 2014.
Defendants Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J. Alario, J.
Marshall Dodson and Newton W. Wilson III filed a Motion to Dismiss
on April 14, 2015. Defendant Taylor M. Whichard III filed a
Joinder in Motion and Motion to Dismiss on the same date. Lead
plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion, and all defendants
filed reply briefs in support of the motion.

On April 1, 2016, the Court issued its Opinion and Order granting
the defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Court allowed the lead
plaintiff 20 days to file another amended complaint or to inform
the Court that it no longer wishes to proceed with the suit.

On April 20, 2016, the lead plaintiff notified the Court that it
did not intend to amend its complaint. On April 26, 2016, the
Court entered a final judgment dismissing the case. The deadline
for the lead plaintiff to appeal the dismissal expired on May 26,
2016. Accordingly, there has not been any loss associated with
this case.


KEY ENERGY: Suit in Corpus Christi, Tex. Set for Dec. 12 Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that one collective action
is set for trial on December 12, 2016.

In March 2015, two collective action lawsuits were filed in the
Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").

The Company said, "We agreed to conditional certification in the
first lawsuit and notice of the case issued to 56 putative class
members.  Only 11 of the eligible class members filed a notice of
consent to join the lawsuit by the opt-in deadline. This is an
opt-in rate of just below 20%. The first lawsuit is currently set
for trial on December 12, 2016."

"We also agreed to conditional certification in the second lawsuit
and notice of the case issued to 14 putative class members. Nine
putative class members, including the named plaintiff, have filed
a notice of consent to join the lawsuit and the deadline to join
expired on April 4, 2016. There is no trial date set for the
second lawsuit.  At this time, we cannot estimate any possible
loss or range of loss for either case."


KEY ENERGY: Suit in Houston, Tex. Set for Dec. 12 Trial
-------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in May 2015, a class
and collective action lawsuit was filed in the Southern District
of Texas, Houston Division, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, alleging violations of the FLSA and the
New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

The Company said, "We agreed to conditional certification of a
putative class and notice issued to 174 putative class members.
Only 27 of the eligible class members filed a notice of consent to
join the lawsuit by the opt-in deadline. This is an opt-in rate of
just above 15%. There is no trial date set for this lawsuit. At
this time, we cannot estimate any possible loss or range of loss
for this case."


KIMCO REALTY: Faces "Badger" Suit in W.D. Penn. Over ADA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Josie Badger, Angela Hunter, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Kimco Realty Corporation, Case No.
2:16-cv-01385-MRH (W.D. Penn., September 8, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Kimco Realty Corporation is a real estate investment trust
headquartered in New Hyde Park, New York

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com

LEE N' EDDIES: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Urban Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 12, 2016, in the case
titled Urban Elevator Service, LLC v. Lee N' Eddies LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-07788 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held
before the Honorable Gary Feinerman.

The minute entry states that pursuant to the September 9, 2016
order, and given the filing of a renewed class certification
motion, the Plaintiff's motion to certify class is denied.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Sgdeja1q


LIBERTY INSURANCE: Class Certification Sought in "Bond" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DAVID BOND and REBECCA BOND, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 15-4236-CV-
C-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs seek certification of a class
consisting of:

     "all persons with a dwelling or other structure located in
     the state of Missouri insured by Liberty Insurance
     Corporation under policy Form HO 03 (Edition 04 09) and
     endorsements at the time of class certification and/or all
     persons insured by Liberty Insurance Corporation who
     incurred physical loss or damage to their dwelling or other
     structures located in the state of Missouri from April 20,
     2009 to the date of class certification arising under policy
     Form HO 03 (Edition 04 09) and endorsements."

Excluded from the Class are: (1) Liberty Insurance Corporation and
its affiliates, officers, and directors; (2) Members of the
judiciary and their staff to whom this action is assigned; and (3)
Plaintiffs' Counsel.

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint Plaintiffs, David
Bond and Rebecca Bond, as class representatives; appoint the law
firms of Steelman, Gaunt & Horsefield; Hearne & Pivac; and Nelson,
Terry, Morton, DeWitt & Paruolo as class counsel; and enter such
other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7kH4tnpp

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derrick L. Morton, Esq.
          Douglas A. Terry, Esq.
          NELSON, TERRY, MORTON
          DEWITT & PARUOLO
          P.O. Box 138800
          Oklahoma City, OK 73113
          Telephone: (405) 705 3600
          Facsimile: (405) 705 2573
          E-mail: dterry@ntmdlaw.com
                  morton@ntmdlaw.com

               - and -

          David L. Steelman, Esq.
          STEELMAN, GAUNT & HORSEFIELD
          901 Pine Street, Suite 110
          P.O. Box 1257
          Rolla, Missouri 65402
          Telephone: (573) 341 8336
          Facsimile: (573) 341 8548
          E-mail: dsteelman@steelmanandgaunt.com

               - and -

          Thomas H. Hearne, Esq.
          HEARNE & PIVAC
          2733 E. Battlefield, No. 301
          Springfield, Missouri 65804
          Telephone: (417) 883 3399
          Facsimile: (417) 883 3996
          E-mail: thhearne@hplawfirm.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bruce A. Moothart, Esq.
          Michael L. Blumenthal, Esq.
          SEYFERTH BLUMENTHAL & HARRIS LLC
          4801 Main Street, Suite 310
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 756 0700
          Facsimile: (816) 756 3700
          E-mail: bruce@sbhlaw.com
                  mike@sbhlaw.com


LIVE NATION: Himber Seeks Certification of Ticket Buyers Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Himber asks the Court to certify a class in the lawsuit
entitled DAVID HIMBER, on behalf of plaintiff and a class v. LIVE
NATION WORLDWIDE, INC.; and LIVE NATION MARKETING, INC., Case No.
2:16-cv-05001-LDW-GRB (E.D.N.Y.).  The Plaintiff seeks
certification of a class defined as:

     (a) all persons (b) who paid either or both defendants (c)
     an amount in excess of the ticket price listed on
     defendants' web site (d) for tickets purchased at the box
     office (e) on or after September 8, 2013.

Mr. Himber further seeks appointment as the representative of the
class, and the appointment of Kleinman LLC and Edelman Combs
Latturner & Goodwin LLC as class counsel.

In his complaint, Mr. Himber alleges that the Defendants have a
practice of advertising one price for a ticket and then charging a
higher price when people arrive at the box office.  He argues that
such conduct is a deceptive act and practice in violation of New
York General Business Law, and false advertising in violation of
General Business Law.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BjBKYbx6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-3593
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com

               - and -

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
          KLEINMAN, LLC
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
          Telephone: (516) 522-2621
          Facsimile: (888) 522-1692
          E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com


MC LLC: Accused by "Marks" Suit of Deceiving Jiffy Lube Customers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LISA MARKS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. M.C., LLC d/b/a JIFFY LUBE MASSACHUSETTS &
JIFFY LUBE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 16-2775A (Mass. Super.
Ct., September 6, 2016), alleges that the Defendants have engaged
in a scheme, whereby they intentionally seek to deceive customers
by misinforming, misdirecting, falsely advertising and
misrepresenting that the customers' vehicles' next oil change
service is due to be performed at a mileage interval, which is in
fact less than the manufacturer's scheduled oil change interval.

The Plaintiff contends that as a result of this scheme, the
Defendants have reaped the benefit of selling oil change services
to customers which are not needed.

M.C., LLC, doing business as Jiffy Lube Massachusetts, is a
foreign limited liability company organized under the laws of
California, maintaining a place of business in Tustin, California.
M.C. has a principal office in Fairhaven, Massachusetts.  M.C.
operated Jiffy Lube facilities throughout Massachusetts providing
certain automobile repair and maintenance services.

Jiffy Lube International, Inc., is a foreign corporation organized
under the laws of Delaware, maintaining a principal place of
business in Houston, Texas.  Jiffy Lube International provided
material support for, and acted as a franchisor, of Jiffy Lube
facilities in Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. Mazow, Esq.
          FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW, MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, P.C.
          2 Salem Green, Suite 2
          Salem, MA 01970
          Telephone: (617) 231-7829
          E-mail: rmazow@forrestlamothe.com


METHOD PRODUCTS: Faces "Labrado" Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Method Products,
PBC.

The case is captioned Carlo Labrado, an individual, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Method Products, PBC,
Case No. CGC 16 554143 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 8, 2016).

Method Products, PBC is a manufacturer of home care, fabric care
and personal care products.


MJ CHRISTENSEN: Fisher's Renewed Bid to Compel Response Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned STEVENSON FISHER, Plaintiff, v. MJ
CHRISTENSEN JEWELERS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-
358-RFB-NJK (D. Nev.), Judge Nancy J. Koppe denied Stevenson
Fisher's renewed motion to compel responses from the defendant, Le
Vian Corporation.

The case arises from one prerecorded telemarketing call that
Fisher received on his cell phone in December 2014.  The call
advertised a trunk sale for one of the defendants, MJ Christensen
Jewelers (MJC).  Fisher believed that MJC and other retailers
associated with Le Vian may have called other consumers without
permission, and therefore wished to certify a statewide class
under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act and a national
class under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

Fisher maintained that he requires broad pre-certification
discovery related to Le Vian's telemarketing practices and
business relationships in order to uncover information related to
the "size and identity of the class."  Thus far, Fisher has filed
four motions to compel in an attempt to obtain documents and
information from Le Vian.  The court has previously denied
Fisher's first, second and third motions to compel.

Judge Koppe found that Fisher has not met his burden of making a
prima facie showing of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23's prerequisites
because he fails to make any argument in that regard, and that
neither has Fisher convinced the court that the discovery he seeks
is "likely to produce persuasive information substantiating the
class action allegations."  Additionally, the judge stated that
Fisher's discovery requests are simply not "proportional to the
needs of the case" under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26.

"Plaintiff makes far-reaching, overbroad discovery requests that
seek to delve into business relationships and events that are far
removed from the single phone call, single trunk show, and single
business relationship between MJC and Le Vian that form the basis
of this action," said Judge Koppe.

A full-text copy of Judge Koppe's September 1, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/HLu6n9 from Leagle.com.

Stevenson Fisher, Plaintiff, represented by Candice Renka --
crenka@maclaw.com -- Marquis & Aurbach.

Stevenson Fisher, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A. Marquis --
smarquis@maclaw.com -- Marquis Aurbach Coffing.

MJ Christensen Jewelers, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kevin N.
Anderson -- kanderson@fabianvancott.com -- Fabian VanCott.

Le Vian Corp, Defendant, represented by D. Neal Tomlinson, Snell &
Wilmer L.L.P. & Joseph Duffy, Jr. -- joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, pro hac vice.


ML AUTOMOTIVE: Otero Seeks Certification of Salespersons Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Eduardo Otero and Hilario
Gonzalez, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. ML AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
d/b/a "Palmetto57 AUTO GROUP"; NM1, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, d/b/a "Palmetto57 AUTO GROUP" and "Palmetto57
NISSAN"; VW1, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, d/b/a
"Palmetto57 AUTO GROUP" and "Palmetto57 VOLKSWAGEN," Case No.
1:16-cv-23239-JEM (S.D. Fla.), including Opt-in Plaintiffs Ernesto
Miranda, Rafael Lacay, and Nixon Barbosa, move the Court for an
order:

   (1) granting conditional certification of the Action as a
       collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act;

   (2) expediting discovery production by the Defendants, within
       15 days of the Court Order, of a complete list of each and
       every person -- and their last known home address and
       telephone number, and e-mail addresses -- who was ever
       employed as an automobile salesperson at the auto mall
       dealership owned and/or operated by Defendants ML
       AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, LLC; NM1, LLC; and VW1, LLC., known as
       "Palmetto57 AUTOGROUP" located at or near the Palmetto
       Expressway and NW 57th Avenue, Miami between July 27, 2016
       and the present;

   (3) requiring Defendants to format and produce on an expedited
       basis said list, both in hard copy and electronically in
       an editable Excel spreadsheet, organized alphabetically
       from "A" to "Z" and with each person's last known home
       address and telephone number, and email addresses in a
       separate field corresponding with each name; and

   (4) permitting Plaintiffs' counsel to mail a Court-Approved
       Notice to all such persons about their rights to opt into
       this collective action by filing a Consent to Join
       Lawsuit.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TgEg59Bs

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
          ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
          6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
          MIAMI, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 665-9211
          Facsimile: (305) 328-4842
          E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Susan Potter Norton, Esq.
          ALLEN, NORTON & BLUE, P.A.
          121 Majorca Avenue
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 445-7801
          Facsimile: (305) 442-1578
          E-mail: snorton@anblaw.com


NIANTIC INC: Villas Sues Over Nuisance Caused by Pokemon Go Craze
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE VILLAS OF POSITANO CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NIANTIC, INC.,
THE POKEMON COMPANY, and NINTENDO CO. LTD., Case No. 3:16-cv-05091
(N.D. Cal., September 2, 2016), arises from the popular Pokemon Go
mobile game.

The Pokemon Go mobile game is developed by Niantic and based on a
media franchise co-owned by Nintendo and marketed and licensed by
Pokemon Co.  Pokemon Go is the latest iteration of the immensely
popular Pokemon media franchise, which consists in large part of a
series of video games in which players take on the role of
"trainers" with the goal of capturing and collecting fantasy
creatures called Pokemon.

The Villas of Positano is an oceanfront condominium complex
consisting of 62 residences, located in Hollywood, Florida.
Located near the Hollywood Beach Boardwalk, a public space
containing restaurants and shopping, the Villas complex itself is
private property.  The owners of the Villas' condominiums are all
members of the Condominium Association, a non-profit corporation
which governs the policies of the Villas, and is responsible for,
inter alia, the maintenance and upkeep of the Villas' facilities
and common spaces.

Villas contends that the global positioning system coordinates
that the Defendants had designated as Pokestops and Pokemon gyms
were on or directly adjacent to private property, and that
Defendants had placed these Pokestops and Pokemon gyms on private
property without the consent of the properties' owners.

The intentional, unauthorized placement of Pokestops and Pokemon
gyms on or near the Villas and the properties of other members of
the proposed class constitutes a continuing invasion of the class
members' use and enjoyment of their land, committed by Niantic on
an ongoing basis for Defendants' profit, Villas contends.  Villas
adds that Niantic has, thus far, ignored repeated requests to
remove the Pokestop at issue.  Hence, Villas says, the Defendants
are liable for nuisance and damages caused by the players.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          468 North Camden Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (818) 532-6499
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


NORTHLAND GROUP: Aguirre Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Aguirre asks the Court to certify that the claims set forth
in her lawsuit titled CARMEN AGUIRRE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. NORTHLAND GROUP INC, Case No.
1:16-cv-05003 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed on behalf of the proposed
class defined as:

     (1) All persons in Illinois (2) to whom Defendant sent a
     form letter to collect a debt (3) substantially similar to
     Exhibit C of Plaintiff's Complaint (4) which threatened the
     possibility of IRS reporting for (5) any debt less than $600
     (6) within 1 year of the complaint.

Ms. Aguirre also asks the Court to name her as class
representative, appoint her lawyers as counsel for the class and
allow her to file a memorandum in support of the Motion after
taking class discovery.

Ms. Aguirre brings the class action for alleged violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  She alleges that the
Defendants violated the FDCPA by threatening to report debt
cancellation to the IRS if she chooses to pay less than the total
amount due on a debt where the total amount is below any threshold
for IRS reporting.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ckjlYrY5

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Wood, Esq.
          Celetha Chatman, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 502
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 757-1880
          Facsimile: (312) 476-1362
          E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com
                  cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com


ORLEANS PARISH, LA: Yarls Renews Bid to Certify Residents Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs renew their motion for an order certifying as a
class action the lawsuit captioned Darwin Yarls, Jr., Leroy Shaw,
Jr. and Douglas R. Brown on Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Derwyn Bunton, in his official capacity as
Chief District Defender for Orleans Parish, Louisiana; James T.
Dixon, Jr., in his official capacity as Louisiana State Public
Defender, Case No. 3:16-cv-00031-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.).

Darwin Yarls, Jr., et al., seeks certification of a class
consisting of all individuals in Louisiana, who have been or will
be placed on a waiting list for representation, thereby, denying
them competent, conflict-free counsel indefinitely.  The
Plaintiffs additionally move to certify a subclass of Orleans
Parish defendants, who have been or will be placed on a waiting
list for representation, thereby, denying them competent,
conflict-free counsel indefinitely.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to designate them as class
representatives, and appoint their attorneys as class co-counsel
in the Action.  They further ask the Court to schedule a hearing
on the matter, and direct the parties to begin class discovery
prior to ruling on class certification.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1Kb7Lefw

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brandon J. Buskey, Esq.
          Ezekiel Edwards, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          CRIMINAL LAW REFORM PROJECT
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 284-7364
          E-mail: bbuskey@aclu.org
                  eedwards@aclu.org

               - and -

          Justin Harrison, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF LOUISIANA
          P.O. Box 56157
          New Orleans, LA 70156
          Telephone: (504) 522-0628
          Facsimile: (888) 534-2995
          E-mail: jharrison@laaclu.org

               - and -

          William P. Quigley, Esq.
          LOYOLA UNIVERSITY NEW ORLEANS
          COLLEGE OF LAW
          7214 St. Charles Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70118
          Cell No.: (504) 710-3074
          E-mail: quigley77@gmail.com

               - and -

          Anna Lellelid-Douffet, Esq.
          PO Box 19388
          New Orleans, LA 70179
          Telephone: (504) 224-9670
          E-mail: lellelid.law@gmail.com


OU JIANG CITY: Wu Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BAI QIANG WU, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER EMPLOYEES
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. OU JIANG CITY SUPERMARKET INC. d/b/a, OU
JIANG SUPERMARKET, XIU OU XIA, "A King" XIA, XIU CHAI XIA, CHENG
HUA SUN, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-04942
(E.D.N.Y., September 2, 2016), alleges that pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the
Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages, (2)
liquidated damages, (3) prejudgment and post-judgment interest;
and (4) attorneys' fees and costs.

Ou Jiang Supermarket Inc., doing business as Ou Jiang Supermarket,
owns and operates a supermarket in Queens County located in
Flushing, New York.  The Individual Defendants are owners,
officers, directors or managing agents of the Company.  The Doe
Defendants are to-be-identified owners, officers, directors or
managing agents of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


PATH INC: Must Defend Against Yelp Data-Mining Privacy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Yelp cannot escape claims that it invaded Apple device users'
privacy by uploading their personal data without consent, a
federal judge in San Francisco ruled on September 9.

Yelp is one of 14 app developers accused of using a "find friends"
feature to mine users' contacts without their permission.  The
consolidated class action stretches back to 2012 when lead
plaintiff Marc Opperman sued Apple, Yelp and others for claims of
privacy invasion.

During a hearing last month, a Yelp attorney argued app users
authorized the crowd-sourcing, business review company to use
their contact lists to identify other Yelp users.

But the plaintiffs countered Yelp never disclosed it would upload
the contacts to its own server in a manner so insecure that even
an "unsophisticated hacker" could access the data.

In a Sept. 9 ruling, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar denied Yelp's
motion for summary judgment, finding that several pieces of
evidence suggest Yelp did not explicitly disclose its intent to
upload the contact information.

Yelp argued the plaintiffs had consented to the upload twice --
first when agreeing to its terms of service and privacy policy
when first registering as users and again when authorizing the
app's friend finder function.

But Tigar found it was "unclear" whether Yelp's off-screen,
privacy policy terms, which could only be accessed through a
hyperlink, provided adequate notice.

Yelp further maintained that it needed to upload the data to match
users' contacts with its registered users, and that plaintiffs
need not understand every detail of how the process worked to give
consent.

Tigar rejected that argument, finding those details matter if the
app maker's conduct goes beyond what the plaintiffs reasonably
believed they consented to.

The judge also rebuffed Yelp's claim that the Copyright Act
preempted any claims against it for merely reproducing email
addresses and other information not protected by copyright law.

Tigar said the plaintiffs "do not allege that Yelp violated their
privacy rights by simply reproducing or copying the address book
data."

The upload and analysis of their contacts is what forms the basis
of the privacy claims, Tigar added.

Ultimately, the judge found the parties' dueling narratives
present a "triable issue of fact" that can only be decided by a
jury.

"Fundamentally, this case is about whether Apple's conduct and
that of application developers violated community norms of
privacy," Tigar wrote in his 21-page ruling. "A 'reasonable'
expectation of privacy is an objective entitlement founded on
broadly based and widely accepted community norms."

"The Court accepted the fact that Yelp only accessed the email
addresses of a user's contacts to help them find friends on Yelp
after receiving consent to do so, and did not save or misuse that
information," Yelp spokeswoman Rachel Youngblade said.
"Nonetheless, the Court appears to state that an online mobile app
must inform a user any time data is transmitted from their phone
to the online company to make the app work. We disagree, and think
that users already understand that online apps require information
to be transmitted online."

Class attorney Nicholas Carlin called the ruling significant
because it means the plaintiffs are likely to prevail in any
future summary judgment motions filed by other app developer
defendants.

"The judge ruled that we didn't have to prove that they did
anything with the data beyond what they did in that case --
uploading it and storing it," Carlin said in an interview,
addressing the defendants' argument that they were only liable if
they used the data for marketing or other purposes.

"The use of the data that was not consented to for plaintiffs was
sufficient to at least go to the jury and find out if it was
sufficiently offensive and constituted an invasion of privacy,"
Carlin added.

Carlin -- nac@phillaw.com -- is with Phillips Erlewine Given &
Carlin in San Francisco.

In July, Tigar certified a class of 480,000 Apple device users
whose contact data was uploaded by the social network app Path
between November 2011 and February 2012.

Tigar indicated at an August hearing that he plans to try the
Apple and Path case separately to help form a roadmap for the
remainder of the class action.

The parties are expected back in court on Nov. 15 to argue the
plaintiffs' motion to certify a larger class of all U.S. residents
who purchased Apple devices prior to Feb. 8, 2012. That's when
Apple implemented new safeguards to prevent "malicious apps" from
stealing users' private data, according to the motion.

Other app developers named as defendants in the lawsuit include
Twitter, Instagram and "Angry Birds" maker Rovio.

The case is captioned, MARC OPPERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PATH,
INC., et al., Defendants., Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST (N.D. Cal.).

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://is.gd/1yUaBK from Leagle.com.


PEOPLE AGAINST DIRTY: Accused by Vincent of Deceiving Consumers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wesley Vincent, individually on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated and John Does (1-100) on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. People Against Dirty, PBC,
Case No. 7:16-cv-06936-NSR (S.D.N.Y., September 2, 2016), alleges
that the Defendant deceives consumers throughout the state of New
York and the country because their products contain synthetic
ingredients and are, therefore, neither natural nor naturally
derived.

People Against Dirty, PBC, markets and sells laundry supplies,
cleaning supplies, and personal cleaning supplies throughout the
State of New York and the country.  The Company's marketing is
focused on using natural, clean, safe, non-toxic, hypoallergenic,
and naturally derived ingredients.

The Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the state of Delaware with its principal places of business in
San Francisco, California.  The Company manufactures, markets,
advertises, and distributes the Products throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (845) 483-7100
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


PERFORMANCE SPORTS: Says Business Review Report Not Accurate
------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Sports Group Ltd. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2016,
that an article appearing in the August 15, 2016 edition of New
Hampshire Business Review reported that a Performance Sports Group
spokesman "said that the firm is not under any investigation by
federal authorities, though it is the target of six class action
suits filed in May and consolidated in U.S. District Court in New
York."

That report is not accurate. While its August 15 announcement
referenced an internal investigation, Performance Sports Group is
also the subject of inquiries by U.S. and Canadian securities
regulators, including an investigation by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.  It is also a named defendant in only one
shareholder class action lawsuit now pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.


PETER PIPER: Illegally Collects Debt, "Jacobson" Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Jacobson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Peter Piper Incorporated d/b/a Peter Piper Pizza and
Unknown Parties named as Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 4:16-cv-
00596-LCK (D. Ariz., September 9, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Peter Piper Incorporated operates a pizza and entertainment
restaurant chain throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chant Yedalian, Esq.
      CHANT & COMPANY
      1010 N Central Ave.
      Glendale, CA 91202
      Telephone: (877) 574-7100
      Facsimile: (877) 574-9411

         - and -

      David Wendell Williams, Esq.
      DAVIS MILES MCGUIRE GARDNER PLLC
      40 E Rio Salado Pkwy., Ste. 425
      Tempe, AZ 85281
      Telephone: (480) 733-6800
      Facsimile: (480) 733-3748
      E-mail: dwilliams@davismiles.com

PRECISION CASTPARTS: NECA-IBEW Sues Over Acquisition by Berkshire
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NECA-IBEW PENSION TRUST FUND (The Decatur Plan), and ANGELA
LOHMANN, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE ANGELA LOHMANN REVOCABLE TRUST,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP., MARK DONEGAN, DON R. GRABER, LESTER L.
LYLES, DANIEL J. MURPHY, VERNON E. OECHSLE, ULRICH SCHMIDT,
RICHARD L. WAMBOLD and TIMOTHY A. WICKS, Case No. 3:16-cv-01756-YY
(D. Ore., September 2, 2016), is brought on behalf of the former
shareholders of Precision Castparts Corp. for alleged violations
of the federal securities laws arising out of the Defendants'
dissemination of false and misleading proxy materials in violation
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

PCC is a company headquartered in Portland, Oregon, and, pursuant
to an acquisition announced in August 2015 and completed in
January 2016, is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire
Hathaway Inc.  PCC started as a small manufacturer of investment
castings and expanded into a worldwide, Fortune 500 company
producing investment castings, forgings, and fasteners for
aerospace, power, and general industrial customers.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary M. Berne, Esq.
          Nadia H. Dahab, Esq.
          STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
          209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 227-1600
          E-mail: gberne@stollberne.com
                  ndahab@stollberne.com

               - and -

          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          Eun Jin Lee, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com
                  ricka@rgrdlaw.com
                  elee@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
          Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq.
          Robin Switzenbaum, Esq.
          Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: ssavett@bm.net
                  mdavidoff@bm.net
                  rswitzenbaum@bm.net
                  ldeutsch@bm.net

NECA-IBEW Pension Trust Fund is also represented by:

          Patrick J. O'Hara, Esq.
          CAVANAGH & O'HARA
          2319 West Jefferson Street
          Springfield, IL 62702
          Telephone: (217) 544-1771
          E-mail: patrick@cavanagh-ohara.com


PSA REALTY: Faces "Ghale" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bhagwati Ghale, Beauty Akhtar, Sarita Bhandari, and Aruna Tamang,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated Plaintiffs
v. PSA Realty Corp., La Quinta Inns, Inc., Kanshik Patel,
Chandresh Patel, and Mark Chloupek, in their individual and
professional capacity, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-04944 (E.D.N.Y.,
September 5, 2016), was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
in order to remedy Defendants' alleged wrongful withholding of
Plaintiffs' lawfully earned minimum and overtime compensation.
Plaintiffs also bring these claims under New York Labor Law as
well as the supporting New York State Department of Labor
Regulations for alleged violations of minimum and overtime wages,
spread-of-hours pay and notice and record-keeping requirements.

Plaintiffs' job duties included cleaning, maintaining, and
managing upkeep of the various rooms throughout the La Quinta
Motel.

La Quinta engaged the services of PSA Realty Corp., which
functioned as an intermediary agency, to recruit and retain
Plaintiffs as housekeepers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq.
     Elizabeth Vulaj, Esq.
     PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
     3510 Broadway, Suite 201
     Astoria, NY 11106
     Phone: (718) 777-0400
     Fax: (718) 777-0599


R&A OYSTERS: Class of H-2B Workers Certified in "Cordova" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of settlement only, the Hon. William H. Steele
granted the motion for conditional certification of the settlement
class filed in the lawsuit styled MIGUEL ANGEL FUENTES CORDOVA, et
al. v. R & A OYSTERS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00462-WS-M
(S.D. Ala.).   The Court conditionally certifies Count Three of
the Action as a class action on behalf of this settlement class:

     [A]ll those individuals admitted as H-2B temporary foreign
     workers pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b),
     who were employed by the Defendants in Alabama between
     October 8, 2008 until the filing date of the present action,
     and who were paid on an hourly basis.

Judge Steele also appoints Miguel Angel Fuentes Cordova as class
representative.  To the extent the Plaintiffs seek appointment of
Leovardo Morales Inclan as additional class representative, Judge
Steele denies their motion.  Judge Steele also appoints Southern
Poverty Law Center as class counsel to represent the settlement
class.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LAkIlsqo


REITER BUNSIC: "Casimir" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LYONEL CASIMIR, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
REITER BUNSIC CONTRACTORS, INC., a Florida Profit Corporations,
and LOUIS F. BUNSIC, an individual, Case No. 9:16-cv-81548-DMM
(S.D. Fla., September 6, 2016), is brought to recover overtime
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Reiter Bunsic Contractors, Inc., is a Florida corporation that
owns and operates a construction business in Palm Beach County,
Florida.  The Company holds a Certified General Contractor,
Construction Business License, according to the Florida license
board.  Louis F. Bunsic, a Florida resident, owns, manages,
directs, or operates the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maguene D. Cadet, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A.
          2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203
          Boynton Beach, FL 33426
          Telephone: (561) 853-2212
          Facsimile: (561) 853-2213
          E-mail: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com


RIVMAR CORPORATION: Sued by Vazquez Over FLSA and IMWL Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE VAZQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated v. RIVMAR CORPORATION and JESUS MARTINEZ, Case
No. 1:16-cv-08636 (N.D. Ill., September 2, 2016), is brought by
the Plaintiff, who seeks redress for alleged violations of his
rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.

Rivmar is incorporated in Illinois.  Jesus Martinez is the owner
and president of Rivmar.  He controls Rivmar's operations and
enacted the illegal pay practices set forth in the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Fish, Esq.
          Kim Hilton, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM
          200 E 5th Ave., Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355-7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  khilton@fishlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Eduardo J. Gil, Esq.
          THE GIL LAW GROUP
          605 N. Broadway
          Aurora, IL 60505
          Telephone: (630) 906-0144
          Facsimile: (630) 906-0147


ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Magistrate Judge Says Case Should be Trimmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Root9B Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 16, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a U.S. Magistrate Judge
has issued a recommendation that the Court grant in part and deny
in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in a
class action complaint.

The Company and two senior executives of the Company are named as
defendants in a class action proceeding filed on June 23, 2015, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On
September 24, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California granted a motion to transfer the lawsuit to
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.  On
October 14, 2015, the Court appointed David Hampton as Lead
Plaintiff and approved Hampton's selection of the law firm Levi &
Korsinsky LLP as Lead Counsel.

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on January 4, 2016.  The
Amended Complaint alleges violations of the federal securities
laws on behalf of a class of persons who purchased shares of the
Company's common stock between October 17, 2014 and June 15, 2015.
In general, the Amended Complaint alleges that false or misleading
statements were made or that there was a failure to make
appropriate disclosures concerning the Company's cyber security
business and products.

On February 18, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed an opposition to
the motion to dismiss and the Company replied on May 4, 2016.

On August 3, 2016, the U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a
recommendation that the Court grant Plaintiff's motion to strike
certain exhibits from Defendants' motion to dismiss, and on August
4, 2016, the U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that
the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint.

Unless the parties agree otherwise, the parties have 14 days from
the issuance of the recommendations within which to object to the
recommendations.

"We cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit; however, the
Company believes the claims lack merit and intends to defend
against the lawsuit vigorously.  No liability has been recorded in
the financial statements for this matter," the Company said.


RVS EXPRESS: Faces "Maniago" Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against RVS Express LLC,
RVS Express Trucking Company, RVS Line Inc., RVS Line LLC, RVS
Transport LLC, and Does 1-50.

The case is captioned Noel Maniago, on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. RVS Express LLC, RVS Express Trucking
Company, RVS Line Inc., RVS Line LLC, RVS Transport LLC, and Does
1-50, Case No. 34-2016-00200048-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
September 8, 2016).

The Defendants operate a freight shipping and trucking company
headquartered at 412 8th St SW, Auburn, WA 98001.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Blair Corren, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CORREN & CORREN
      5345 N. El Dorado St. #7
      Stockton, CA 95207
      Telephone: (209) 478-2621
      Facsimile: (209) 478-3038
      E-mail: office@correnlaw.com


SANDBOX LOGISTICS: Rayfield Sues on Behalf of Equipment Operators
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DARIAN RAYFIELD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. SANDBOX LOGISTICS, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-
02231 (D. Colo., September 2, 2016), alleges that Sandbox required
the Plaintiff to work more than 40 hours in a workweek as an
equipment operator, and has misclassified him and other EOs
throughout the United States as exempt from overtime under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sandbox Logistics, LLC, is a foreign limited liability company
organized under the laws of Texas and headquartered in Houston,
Texas.  Sandbox is a commercial support service company within the
meaning of the applicable Colorado Minimum Wage Orders because it
is a business or enterprise that is directly or indirectly engaged
in providing service to other commercial firms through the use of
service employees such as the Plaintiff and the Class Members.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


SCHWABE NORTH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Big Thyme Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Big Thyme Enterprises, Inc., individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Schwabe
North America Incorporated, Enzymatic Therapy, LLC, and John Does
1-5, Case No. 3:16-cv-03050-CMC (D.S.C., September 8, 2016), seeks
to stop the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and
prerecorded voice to deliver a message without prior express
consent of the called party.

Schwabe North America Incorporated manufactures and distributes
dietary supplements in the United States and internationally.

Enzymatic Therapy, LLC is a manufacturer of vitamins, dietary
supplements and natural medicines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Gressette Felder Jr., Esq.
      MCGOWAN HOOD AND FELDER
      1517 Hampton Street
      Columbia, SC 29201
      Telephone: (803) 779-0100
      E-mail: jfelder@mcgowanhood.com

SELECT MEDIA: Faces "Brown" Class Suit in California Super. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Select Media
Services LLC, The News Group Inc., The News Group LP, TNG GP, and
Does 1-10.

The case is captioned Audrey L. Brown, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Select Media Services LLC, The News Group
Inc., The News Group LP, TNG GP, and Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2016-
00200076-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., September 10, 2016).

The Defendants own and operate a newspaper company in Los Angeles,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Carver, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL L. CARVER
      Near East Lassen Ave and Ceres Ave
      1395 Ridgewood Drive, Suite 300
      Chico, CA 95973
      Telephone: (530) 891-8503
      E-mail: chico@laborlawoffice.com


SILVER CREEK: Ashcraft Class Suit Removed to E.D. Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Ashcraft Group, LLC, for itself
and all others similarly situated v. Silver Creek Oil & Gas, LLC,
Case No. 16-CJ-72, was removed from the Seminole County District
Court to the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Oklahoma
(Muskogee). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:16-cv-
00388-JHP to the proceeding.

Silver Creek Oil & Gas, LLC is an oil and gas company, and engages
in the acquisition, development, and exploration of unconventional
natural gas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kandi Jepsen Pate, Esq.
      PATE & WOLFE
      1900 NW Expwy, Ste 1300
      Oklahoma City, OK 73118
      Telephone: (405) 858-0012
      Facsimile: (405) 858-0013

The Defendant is represented by:

      Dawson A. Brotemarkle, Esq.
      Heather L. Cupp, Esq.
      J. Kevin Hayes, Esq.
      HALL ESTILL HARDWICK GABLE GOLDEN & NELSON
      320 S Boston Ave, Ste 200
      Tulsa, OK 74103-3706
      Telephone: (918) 594-0400
      Facsimile: (918) 594-0505
      E-mail: dbrotemarkle@hallestill.com
              hcupp@hallestill.com
              khayes@hallestill.com

SMG HOLDINGS: Urbano, et al. Seek Class & Subclass Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled OSCAR URBANO, an individual, MICHAEL RANGEL,
an individual, and DEMETHA STROMAN, an individual, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SMG HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; SMG, a
business entity, form unknown; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv-00603-AG-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the following classes and
subclasses:

1. The "Ontario Class"

     "All persons employed by Defendants SMG and SMG Holdings,
     Inc. ("SMG" or "Defendants") at any time from January 27,
     2011 through the date of the order granting class
     certification who worked as non-exempt employees at
     Defendants' Ontario, California location";

2. The "Stockton Class"

     "All persons employed by Defendants SMG and SMG Holdings,
     Inc. ("SMG" or "Defendants") at any time from January 27,
     2011 through the date of the order granting class
     certification who worked as non-exempt and non-union
     employees at Defendants' Stockton, California location";

3. The "Long Beach Class"

     "All persons employed by Defendants SMG and SMG Holdings,
     Inc. ("SMG" or "Defendants") at any time from January 27,
     2011 through the date of the order granting class
     certification who worked as non-exempt employees in the
     "SAVOR" food and beverage department at Defendants' Long
     Beach, California location.

4. Ontario Meal Period Subclass A:

     "all "Ontario Class" members who worked at least one shift
     over 5 hours";

5. Ontario Meal Period Subclass B:

     "all "Ontario Class" members who worked at least one shift
      over 10 hours";

6. Stockton Meal Period Subclass C:

     "all "Stockton Class" members who worked at least one shift
     over 5 hours";

7. Stockton Meal Period Subclass D:

     "all "Stockton Class" members who worked at least one shift
      over 10 hours";

8. Long Beach Meal Period Subclass E:

     "all "Long Beach Class" members who worked at least one
     shift over 5 hours";

9. Long Beach Meal Period Subclass F:

     "all "Long Beach Class" members who worked at least one
     shift over 10 hours";

10. Ontario Rest Period Subclass A:

     "all "Ontario Class" members who worked at least one shift
     over 3.5 hours";

11. Stockton Rest Period Subclass B:

     "all "Stockton Class" members who worked at least one shift
     over 3.5 hours";

12. Long Beach Rest Period Subclass C:

     "all "Long Beach Class" members who worked at least one
     shift over 3.5 hours";

13. Ontario UCL Subclass A:

     "all persons employed by SMG as non-exempt employees in
     Ontario, California at any time from January 27, 2011 until
     the date of the order granting class certification";

14. Stockton UCL Subclass B:

     "all persons employed by SMG as non-exempt non-union
     employees in Stockton, California at any time from January
     27, 2011 until the date of the order granting class
     certification";

15. Long Beach UCL Subclass C:

     "all persons employed by SMG as non-exempt SAVOR food and
     beverage employees in Long Beach, California at any time
     from January 27, 2011 until the date of the order granting
     class certification";

16. Ontario Minimum Wage Subclass A:

     "all "Ontario Class" members who were not paid for all time
     they were clocked in, as indicated in SMG's time records";

17. Stockton Minimum Wage Subclass B:

     all "Stockton Class" members who were not paid for all time
     they were clocked in, as indicated in SMG's time records;

18. Long Beach Minimum Wage Subclass C:

     "all "Long Beach Class" members who were not paid for all
     time they were clocked in, as indicated in SMG's time and
     pay records";

19. Ontario Overtime Subclass A:

     "all "Ontario Class" members who worked over 8 hours in any
     day and/or over 40 hours in any work week and were not paid
     overtime compensation for all time they were clocked in, as
     indicated by SMG's time and pay records";

20. Stockton Overtime Subclass B:

     "all "Stockton Class" members who worked over 8 hours in any
     day and/or over 40 hours in any work week and were not paid
     overtime compensation for all time they were clocked in, as
     indicated by SMG's time and pay records";

21. Long Beach Overtime Subclass C:

     "all "Long Beach Class" members who worked over 8 hours in
     any day and/or over 40 hours in any work week and were not
     paid overtime compensation for all time they were clocked
     in, as indicated by SMG's time and pay records";

22. Ontario Reimbursement Subclass A:

     "all "Ontario Class" members who paid for uniform items,
     including black pants/Dickies and/or black steel-toed or
     non-slip shoes and/or had to use their personal cell phone
     for work related purposes and were not reimbursed by SMG for
     such costs";

23. Stockton Reimbursement Subclass B:

     "all "Stockton Class" members who paid for uniform items,
     including black or khaki pants and/or had to use their
     personal cell phone for work related purposes and were not
     reimbursed by SMG for such costs"; and

24. Long Beach Reimbursement Subclass C:

     "all "Long Beach Class" members who paid for uniform items,
     including blank pants, solid shirts, black non-slip shoes
     and/or ties and/or had to use their personal cell phone for
     work related purposes and were not reimbursed by SMG for
     such costs".

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint Oscar Urbano,
Michael Rangel, and Demetha Stroman as class representatives, and
appoint Plaintiffs as representatives of the class and appoint
Matern Law Group, PC as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=E1y0oGeX

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Dalia Khalili, Esq.
Shayna E. Dickstein, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Tel: (310) 531 1900
Fax: (310) 531 1901


SUMMIT NURSING: Faces "Abrigo" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA ERMINA ZELAYA ABRIGO and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs. SUMMIT NURSING SERVICES, INC.,
MELVA BARRETT, BANVILLE BARRETT, RICHARD THELWELL, Defendants,
Case 1:16-cv-23812-JAL (S.D. Fla., September 5, 2016), was filed
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SUMMIT NURSING SERVICES, INC. provides home health care.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Phone: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


SWISHER HYGIENE: Motion to Dismiss Berger Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Swisher Hygiene Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 19,
2016, that Defendants anticipated arguing before the court on the
motions to dismiss a class action lawsuit on September 20, 2016.

On September 8, 2015, a lawsuit seeking to be certified as a class
action (Paul Berger v. Swisher Hygiene Inc., et al., Case No. 2015
CH 13325 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Co.)) was filed in the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division by
Paul Berger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, against Swisher Hygiene Inc., the members of Swisher
Hygiene Inc.'s board of directors, individually, and Ecolab in
connection with the Sale Transaction.

The plaintiff has alleged that (i) faced with an ongoing
investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the
USAO, the individual defendants embarked upon a self-interested
scheme to sell off Swisher International, Inc.'s assets and to
liquidate Swisher Hygiene Inc., (ii) the individual defendants,
through an alleged insufficient process, caused Swisher Hygiene
Inc. to agree to sell substantially all of its assets for
insufficient consideration, (iii) each member of Swisher Hygiene
Inc.'s. Board of Directors is interested in the Sale Transaction
and the plan of dissolution, and (iv) the proxy statement was
materially misleading and/or incomplete. The causes of action set
forth in the complaint are (i) a claim for breaches of the
fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty, fair dealing and due
care, (ii) a claim for failure to disclose, and (iii) a claim
against Ecolab for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty.

The plaintiff sought to enjoin the consummation of the Sale
Transaction unless and until defendants provide all material facts
in the proxy statement, and the plaintiff also seeks compensatory
and/or rescissory damages as allowed by law for the plaintiff.

On October 6, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Illinois action pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-619 given that a
substantially similar action, Raul, was pending in North Carolina
(the "North Carolina action").  In light of the proceedings in the
North Carolina action, whereby the aiding and abetting claims were
dismissed with prejudice and the remaining claims were voluntarily
dismissed, on May 13, 2016, Defendants' 5/2-619 motion was
voluntarily withdrawn.

On May 27, 2016, Defendants then filed motions to dismiss the
Illinois action under 5/2-615 and 5/2-619, and the Individual
Defendants also moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 2/301.  On July 7,
2016, Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion to
dismiss.  On July 29, 2016, Defendants filed a reply brief.
Defendants anticipate arguing before the court on the motions to
dismiss on September 20, 2016.


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Oct. 6 Hearing on Motions to Transfer Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
TerraForm Global, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, that a
court has scheduled a hearing for October 6, 2016, on the pending
motions to transfer class action cases to the Southern District of
New York, the jurisdiction in which SunEdison's bankruptcy is
pending.

On October 23, 2015, October 30, 2015, December 3, 2015, December
9, 2015 and January 4, 2016, separate purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo against the Company,
SunEdison, certain officers and directors of the Company and
SunEdison, and the underwriters of the IPO. Additionally, on
October 29, 2015 and November 5, 2015, separate purported class
action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the same defendants. The
class action plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities
Act"). The class action complaints allege, among other things,
that the defendants made false and materially misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information in the
Registration Statement for the IPO regarding SunEdison and its
recent operating results and business strategy. Among other
relief, the class action complaints seek class certification,
unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees,
costs and such other relief as the applicable court should deem
just and proper.

One of the state actions was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice in February 2016. On April 26, 2016, in light of
SunEdison's voluntary petition for bankruptcy on April 21, 2016,
the Company and the other defendants removed the remaining state
actions to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. On May 27, 2016, the plaintiffs in the cases removed
from state court filed motions to remand. On June 1, 2016, the
defendants filed motions to transfer the cases to the Southern
District of New York, the jurisdiction in which SunEdison's
bankruptcy is pending. The Court has scheduled a hearing on the
pending motions for October 6, 2016.

The Company intends to defend the class action lawsuits
vigorously. The Company is in the preliminary stages of reviewing
the allegations made in the complaints and, as a result, is unable
to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of such
lawsuits or that an adverse resolution of these lawsuits would not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial position and results of operations.


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Michigan Retirement Sys. Seeks Transfer of Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TerraForm Global, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, that on
July 27, 2016, lead plaintiff Municipal Employees' Retirement
System of Michigan in the Horowitz, et. al v. SunEdison, Inc. et
al. action (E.D. Mo.) moved to transfer various actions pending in
federal district courts to the Southern District of New York
(SDNY) for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings before
the Multidistrict Litigation Panel. The following cases involving
TerraForm Global, Inc. are subject to this motion to transfer:

* Pyramid Holdings, Inc. v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. (N.D.
Cal.)

* Beltran v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal.)

* Badri v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal.)

* Fraser v. Wuebbels et al. (N.D. Cal.)

* Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et
al. (N.D. Cal.)

* Patel v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal.)

* Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v. SunEdison,
Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal.)

* Glenview Capital Partners, L.P. et al. v. SunEdison, Inc. et al.
(N.D. Cal.)

* Omega Capital Investors et al. v. SunEdison, Inc. et al. (N.D.
Cal.)


TEXAS COASTAL: "Sury" Suit Seeks Lost Wages Under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
SHARATH SURY, an individual, the Plaintiff, v.  TEXAS COASTAL
ENERGY COMPANY, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; and DOES
1-20, the Defendant, Case No. Be 632799 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 6,
2016), seeks all applicable penalties, lost wages and restitution
pursuant to, among other statutes, the Labor Code and Business and
Professions Code.

According to the complaint, when it hired Plaintiff, Defendant
orally agreed to annual compensation for Plaintiff of $125,000,
paid bi-weekly, plus a bonus of 3% of total revenues generated by
Defendant's offices under Plaintiffs management.

The Plaintiff resigned effective December 31, 2014. At the time of
his resignation, Plaintiff was owed no less than $81,894.00, plus
interest, in compensation from Defendant, all of which remains due
and owing.

Texas Coastal is an oil and gas exploration and production
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan D. Lapidus, Esq.
          Daniel C.Lapidus, Esq.
          Jim D. Bauch, Esq.
          LAPIDUS & LAPIDUS
          177 SOUTH BEVERLY DRIVE
          BEVERLY Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 550 8700
          Facsimile: (310) 943 2471
          E-mail: ryan@lapiduslaw.com
                  dan@lapiduslaw.com
                  jim@lapiduslaw.com


TODISCO SERVICES: Sued in Mass. Super. Ct. Over Billing Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER SILVA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TODISCO SERVICES INC. d/b/a TODISCO
TOWING, the Defendant, Case No. 16-2778E (Mass. Super. Ct., Sep.
6, 2016), seeks declaratory judgment against Todisco's billing
practices, in violation of Massachusetts statutory, regulatory
and/or common law.

According to the complaint, Todisco knowingly engages in unlawful,
unfair and/or deceptive billing practices as it relates to its
towing and storage services. Specifically, Silva contends that
Todisco has a practice of demanding and/or collecting
impermissible amounts of money in connection with its towing and
storage practices in violation of the requirements of law relating
to the same.

Todisco is a towing company which provides towing, transportation,
road service and truck repair; to individuals and businesses in
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John R. Yasi, Esq.
          Kevin J. McCullough, Esq.
          FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW, MCCULLOUGH,
          YASI & YASI PC
          2 Salem Green, Suite 2
          Salem, MA 01970
          Telephone: (617) 231 7829
          E-mail: jyasi@forrestlamothe.com
                  kmccullough@forrestlamothe.com


TOMMIE COPPER: "Herst" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled David Herst, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Tommie Copper Inc.,
Intervenor Plaintiffs William Lucero, Rhonda Boggs, Jerome Jeffy,
and Sandy Kontura, Case No. 9:15-cv-81611, was transferred from
the United States District Court - District of Florida Southern to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-07008-UA to the
proceeding.

Tommie Copper Inc. manufactures and sells copper-infused apparel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Grey Tesh, Esq.
      515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite P300
      West Palm Beach, FL 33401
      Telephone: (561) 600-4166
      Facsimile: (561) 697-8317
      E-mail: gt@greytesh.com

         - and -

      William Charles Wright, Esq.
      WRIGHT LAW OFFICE
      301 Clematis Street, Suite 3000
      West Palm Beach, FL 33401
      Telephone: (561) 514-0904
      Facsimile: (561) 514-0905
      E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Mitchell Edward Widom, Esq.
      BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD
      1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2300
      Miami, FL 33131-3456
      Telephone: (305) 374-7580
      Facsimile: (305) 351-2265
      E-mail: mwidom@bilzin.com

The Intervenor Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald Marron, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
      651 Arroyo Drive
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 696-9006
      E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com

         - and -

      Cullin Avram O'Brien, Esq.
      CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
      6541 NE 21st Way
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
      Telephone: (561) 676-6370
      Facsimile: (561) 320-0285
      E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com


UNITED AIRLINES: "Martin" Class Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Francine Martin, Jeffrey A.
Martin and all others similarly situated v. United Airlines Inc.,
Case No. CJ-2016-4125, was removed from the Oklahoma County
District Court to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Oklahoma. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.  5:16-cv-
01042-F to the proceeding.

United Airlines Inc. is a major American airline headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeff Martin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY E. MARTIN
      6609 Whispering Grove Dr.
      Oklahoma City, OK 73169
      Telephone: (405) 261-0002
      Facsimile: (405) 261-2126
      E-mail: jem@martinlawchicago.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Mark R. McPhail, Esq.
      SPRADLING KENNEDY & MCPHAIL LLP
      1601 NW Expressway, Suite 1750
      Oklahoma City, OK 73118
      Telephone: (405) 418-2700
      Facsimile: (405) 418-2705
      E-mail: mrmcphail@spradlinglaw.com

         - and -

      Sondra A. Hemeryck, Esq.
      SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
      233 S Wacker Dr., Suite 6600
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 258-5500
      Facsimile: (312) 258-5600
      E-mail: shemeryck@schiffhardin.com


VISION FINANCIAL: Court Enters Default Judgment in "Dolemba" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Thomas M. Durkin entered an order entering default
judgment in the lawsuit styled SCOTT DOLEMBA, individually, and
HERMINIA DOLEMBA, individually and on behalf of the class
described herein v. VISION FINANCIAL CORP., Case No. 1:16-cv-03567
(N.D. Ill.).

Default judgment is entered against Defendant Vision Financial
Corp., and in the Plaintiffs' favor, in the amount of $6,000 for
Plaintiff Herminia Dolemba in statutory damages and $1,000 for
Plaintiff Scott Dolemba in statutory damages, plus $6,627 in
attorney's fees and $442 in costs of suit.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=F7yxVE46


WARRIOR AIR: Faces "Cruz" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
LEONARDO WELLINGTON NIEVES CRUZ a/k/a WILLIE CORNEJO and all
others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs.
WARRIOR AIR, INC. d/b/a RAMONA MOTEL, FERNANDO MILLON, LUZ STELLA
MILLON, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-23811-CMA (S.D. Fla., September
5, 2016), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a front desk receptionist and
housekeeper.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Phone: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *